FROM

IMPERIUM
TO
AUCTORITAS

M I C H A E L GRANT

Cambridge University Press Library Edition

 m U.S.A.

CAMBRIDGE
U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS
LIBRARY EDITIONS

See back of jacket and hackflapfor a description of

this project and a list of books at present reissued.

From Imperium to
Auctoritas
A Historical Study of Aes Coinage
in the Roman Empire

MICHAEL GRANT

Between the time of Julius Caesar and the death

of Augustus, Aes coinage was struck at many
centres in the Empire. This pioneer work by
Michael Grant, who has been President and
Medallist of the Royal Numismatic Society
and Archer M . Huntington, Medallist of the
American Numismatic Society, examines nearly
all the known coins o f this period. The coins
illustrate not only the gold, silver and bronze
issues of the period but also the development of
the Roman constitution and administration. A
secondary purpose of this book has therefore
been to extract new historical information—
political, economic, social and personal—on a
vital phase o f world history.
The volume includes twelve plates showing
photographs o f many of the coins. It also i n -
corporates, by courtesy of the Austrian Numis-
matic Society, a supplementary key which re-
lates the coins to the appropriate passages in the
text.

' This is a very important book, covering, as it

does, a mass of material either completely neg-
lected or inadequately handled up to now and
raising by the way a number of serious ques-
tions, both numismatic and historical.'
HAROLD MATTINGLY
£f\ net
 FROM
IMPERIUM TO AUCTORITAS
DEDICATED

TO

M Y W I F E
 FROM
IMPERIUM TO AUCTORITAS
A H I S T O R I C A L S T U D Y O F

AES C O I N A G E I N T H E R O M A N E M P I R E

49 B.C.—A.D. 14

by

MICHAEL GRANT

CAMBRIDGE
A T T H E U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S
1946
REPRINTED
1969
 Published by the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press
Bentley House, 200 Euston Road, London N.W. I
American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022

PUBLISHER'S NOTE
Cambridge University Press Library Editions are re-issues of out-of-
print standard works from the Cambridge catalogue. The texts are
unrevised and, apart from minor corrections, reproduce the latest
published edition.

Standard Book Number: 521 07457 6

First published 1946

Reprinted with corrections 1969

First printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge

Reprinted in Great Britain by John Dickens & Co. Ltd, Northampton
 CONTENTS
PREFACE P A G E ix

ADDENDA AND C O R R I G E N D A xiii

PART I. T H E O F F I C I A L C O I N A G E S
INTRODUCTION I

C H A P T E R 1. Coinage b y imperium maius 49-28 B . C .

y 3

A . The Caesarians 4
B. The Pompeians 20
C. The Republicans 33
D. The Triumvirs 37
E. Octavian as sole ruler 66

C H A P T E R 2 . Coinage b y auctoritasprincipis, 27 B . C . — A . D . 14 80

A . The transition: 27-23 B.C. 80

B. The need for reform 85
C. The bases o f the reform 91
D. Provincial issues b y legati Augusti. 119
E. Provincial issues b y equestrian governors 131
F. Provincial issues b y 'senatorial' governors 134

PART II. T H E ROMAN C I T I E S

INTRODUCTION 147

C H A P T E R 1. The Roman municipia 149

C H A P T E R 2 . The Roman colonies 205

C H A P T E R 3. The Roman cities and the State 290
A . The foundation coinages 290
B. The contribution to the Imperial monetary system 295
C. Colonisation policies o f Julius and Augustus 302
D. Bureaucratic policy concerning the Roman cities 308
E. Administrative interference b y provincial officials 314
F. Relation o f the cities to Augustus 317
vi CONTENTS

PART III. T H E P E R E G R I N E C O M M U N I T I E S
INTRODUCTION P A G E 327

C H A P T E R 1. The communities and theprinceps 328

A . Augustus on posthumous coinages 328

B. Augustus as constitutor o f Latin cities 335
C . Augustus as liberator o f * free' communities 338
D . Augustus as constitutor o f 'stipendiary' communities 346
E. Augustus as KTiorns and 6e6s frr^ccvTfc 356
F. Augustus as heir to the Hellenistic monarchs 368
G. Augustus as dpxiepe^s 376

C H A P T E R 2 . The communities and the Roman officials 379

A . Heads o f officials on the coinages 379
B. Names o f officials o n the coinages 390
C. Libertas and civitas 401

PART IV. IMPERIUM AND AUCTORITAS

INTRODUCTION 407

C H A P T E R 1. Rule b y imperium maius^ 49-28 B . C . 408

A . The revolutionary title o f Imperator: earliest official documents 408

B. The imperium maius o n which the title o f Imperator was based 411

C H A P T E R 2 . Rule b y auctoritasprincipis, 27 B . C . — A . D . 14 424

A . Abolition o f government b y imperium i n 27 B.C. 424

B. Eclipse o f the title Imperator from 27 B.C. 440
C. Auctoritas 443
D . The vehicle o f auctoritas: tribunicia potestas 446

APPENDICES

1. Summary o f the official aes coinages, 49-28 B.C. 455

2. Summary o f the official aes coinages, 27 B . C . — A . D . 14 457
3. Proposed additions and alterations to lists o f provincial governors 458
 CONTENTS vii
4. Summary o f foundation coinages PAGE 459
5. Proposed additions and alterations to lists o f Roman foundations 461
6. Proposed additions and alterations to lists o f peregrine foundations 462
7. Posthumous local issues w i t h heads o f Augustus 463
8. Asian local issues w i t h contemporary heads o f Augustus 467
9. Asian local issues o f the principate o f Augustus portraying members o f his
family 471
10. The 'autonomous' series 472
11. Art 477

ABBREVIATIONS 480

SOURCES 483

KEY TO SPECTROGRAMS 493

K E Y TO MONOGRAMS AND L I G A T U R E S 494

INDICES 495

K E Y TO PLATES 509

PAGE REFERENCES FOR PLATES 511

PLATES 513
 ix

PREFACE

T
H I S book has two interdependent aims. The first is the correct attribution
o f the aes coinage between 49 B.C. and A . D . 14—comprising the periods o f
1

imperium and auctoritas —of 2

all Roman officials and cities, and o f those
peregrine communities throughout the Empire whose money bears or implies
3
a reference to Roman institutions. The second aim is the reconsideration o f the
historical problems i n the light o f this evidence.
M y subject-matter includes more than a thousand separate issues, which can be
divided into approximately 340 series. I t would seem that not more than 76 o f
these series have hitherto been correctly attributed and defined; at least 120 major
4

varieties have not even been published or catalogued. The first o f the aims stated
above may be justified b y these statistics, although its complete fulfilment is much
more than I could claim. Three peculiar features o f the aes issues o f this period enhance
greatly the normal difficulties o f classical research: the coins are usually o f extreme
5
rarity, faultily executed, and i n execrable preservation. The photographic Plates, i n
which preference has been given to coins previously unknown or not reproduced,
illustrate only too clearly these disadvantages, which w i l l , I hope, partially serve as
my apology for the inadequacies o f this book. Another obstacle has been the almost
complete lack o f information concerning the alloys o f which the coins are composed,
in spite o f the vital importance, i n the official currency at least, o f their determination.
This deficiency has been due to the expense, labour and rarity o f chemical analyses.
I t has here been possible to make, use o f an analytical method not (as far as I can
discover) hitherto applied to coins, effected by the spectrograph (pp. x i i , 493).
The historical enquiry depending on the numismatic attributions perhaps needs
no justification. But remarkably enough, no attempt has hitherto been made to
6
collate for any one period the bulk o f information to be derived from these coinages.
1
This word is used, as in the British Museum 4
A correct attribution of a series may be held to
Catalogues, as a 'portmanteau* description for be achieved when the date and place of all its com-
orichalcum, bronze and copper coins. These present ponent issues are determined as closely as possible,
contrasts to the gold and silver in many fields. and when their scope and source are demonstrated
* The reasons for choosing 49 B.C. as a starting- to be identical.
point for the transitional epoch are given below, 5
Milne, JRS. xxvi, 1936, p. 109, calculates that
p. 412. Syme, RR. p. 374, rightly says that the even of an important official issue of provincial
year A.D. 14 'marks the legal termination of the origin (at Alexandria under Tiberius) only about
Republic'. 0-0625 % survives. For the backwardness of current
3
The Client Kingdoms have not been included, knowledge of coin-circulation cf. Rostovtzeff, Ana-
since they were not within the limes, and their tolian Studies to Buckler (1939), p. 277.
institutions were irrelevant to the problems of pro- 6
Nicodemi, Milan cat, pp. xvi f., points out the
vincial administration: cf. Sands, The Client Princes advantage of this method.
of the Roman Empire, Stevenson, RPA. pp. 36 ff.
X PREFACE
They form a remarkable collection o f contemporary, authoritative and variegated
material. The aes issues o f the followers o f Caesar, the last Republicans, and Augustus
are peculiarly rich i n allusions o f constitutional, administrative, and prosopographical
significance: many (though b y no means all) o f these are intentional, since the ancients
1
were not unsusceptible to numismatic propaganda. I n the hands o f Caesar and his
successors, coinage i n aes was revived, i n forms as novel and as mutable as almost
all other institutions o f the same epoch. I t was a period o f unparalleled evolution
and transition. Yet, by an unfortunate contrast, the literary and epigraphic evidence
hardly supplies even the framework for a reconstruction, as the existence o f so many
diametrically opposed views emphasises. Hence this attempt to supplement i t by
the material provided by the aes currencies. The information which they supply has
led me to venture upon a new approach to the constitutional problems. I n par-
ticular, i t has appeared to me to necessitate the complete elimination o f the supposed
imperium maius o f Augustus from 27 B.C. onwards, and so to warrant the title o f
this book. The dominant constitutional theme is the contrast between the military
administration from 49 to 28 B.C. and the civilian government thereafter; recent
research has removed many obstacles to the appreciation o f the latter, but the coins
alone reveal its principal executive activity. I hope that doubts regarding some o f
my conclusions, o f whose controversial character I am aware, w i l l not lead readers
to disbelieve that i n the hands o f others, o f greater experience than myself, the coins
can yield important constitutional results.
A brief explanation o f the arrangement o f my material may be desirable. I n dealing
w i t h 'Roman* aes, i t has unfortunately not been customary to distinguish thoroughly
between governmental and official series on the one hand, and on the other the
currencies o f cities throughout the Empire; the latter, i n their turn, have not always
been observed to fall naturally into two groups, comprising the issues o f the citizen
and non-citizen communities. Since the distinction between these three classes is
essential to any historical investigation, one Part o f this book is allotted to each o f
them. Parts I , I I and I I I are thus concerned respectively w i t h the coinages o f Roman
2
government officials, o f Roman cities, and o f peregrine cities; the attribution o f
each series is accompanied b y a discussion o f its particular historical significance.
Finally, i n Part I V an effort is made to see the constitutional problems i n the new
light which the foregoing evidence has thrown upon them. Its first chapter is devoted
to the regime o f imperium maius which paralysed the Republic from 49 to 28 B.C.,
and its second to the system which followed i t , based on the powers comprehended
by the word auctoritas.
Responsibility is assumed by the writer for all numismatic attributions and
historical deductions o f which the sources are not acknowledged i n the text and notes.
Cf. Mattingly, CAH. xn, p. 716; Miss Toynbee, atfindingcorrespondences between coin-types and
1

JRS. xxix, 1939, p. 119, points out that there is themes of the Res Gestae.
no reason for Miss Newby's astonishment (p. xvi) 2
Described henceforward as * official coinages*.
 PREFACE xi
But I have been very fortunate i n my helpers. I hereby record, although an enumera-
tion cannot adequately express i t , my deepest gratitude to the following: Professor
F. E. Adcock, for reading parts o f the book and giving me on numerous occasions
the benefit o f his learning and judgment; D r C. Bosch, for putting at my disposal his
numismatic card-index o f Asia Minor; the Rev. M . P. Charlesworth, for advice after
studying the typescript; Professor P. W . Duff, for comments on points o f Roman L a w ;
Mr G. M . Fitzgerald, for reference to a find; M r A . S. F. Gow, for several philological
rulings; the late M r E. Harrison, for many corrections and improvements; M r R. P.
Hinks, for iconographical assistance; Mr A . H . M . Jones, for fruitful discussions, and
the loan, i n typescript, o f his book The Greek Cities from Alexander to Justinian;
Mr H . Mattingly, for fifteen years o f inspiration and help—the cause o f my interest
in the subject; D r J. G. Milne, for answering several queries; Professor D . S.
Robertson, for a number o f helpful comments; M r E. S. G. Robinson, for the
continual and invaluable advantage o f his experience and advice; M r I . N . Scott-
Kilvert, for the elucidation o f my argument at many points; M r A . N . Sherwin-White
and M r C. H . V . Sutherland, for allowing me to read the proofs o f their books, The
Roman Citizenship and The Romans in Spain respectively; the Rev. E. A . Sydenham,
for sending me unpublished notes on official mints; M r R. Syme, for introducing
me to new aspects o f history b y his guidance and by the loan, i n proof, o f his
book The Roman Revolution; Miss J. M . C. Toynbee, for putting at my disposal
her lists o f medallic issues and a privately published catalogue; Professor A . D .
Trendall, for several contributions to my study o f Paestum; and my father and
mother, for indispensable assistance o f many kinds.
I must acknowledge w i t h many thanks the use o f material from the following
coin-collections, made accessible to me either personally, or by letter—and i n both
cases I am deeply indebted to directors and staffs for their invariable kindness—or
through the medium o f publications: Alcacer do Sal, Amman, Amsterdam U n i -
versity (Allard Pierson Stichting), Antakya (Committee for Excavation), Aquileia,
Athens, Augsburg, Avignon, Basel, Beirut American College, Belgrade University,
Berkeley (California University), Berlin, Berne, Besangon, Beziers, Bingen, Bolzano,
Bonn, Brussels, Bucharest, Bucharest University, Budapest, Bursa, Cadiz, Cagliari,
Cambridge University, Cambridge (Corpus Christi College, Lewis Collection),
Canterbury, Catania University, Cefalu, Chatillon, Chester, Chur, Cologne, Con-
stantine, Copenhagen, Copenhagen (Thorvaldsen Museum), Danzig Gymnasium,
Donaueschingen, Dresden, Ehingen, el Escorial, Florence, Glasgow University
(Hunterian Collection), Graz, Hague, Hague (Museum Meermanno-Westreenianum),
Hamburg, Hanau, Hanover, Heidelberg University, Hofheim, Istanbul, Jerusalem,
Karlsruhe, Klagenfurt, Kolin, Landshut, Leiden, Leiden University, Leipzig, Lenin-
grad, Lewes, Lisbon, Lisbon University, London (British Museum), Luxembourg,
Lyon, Madrid, Madrid (Instituto de Valencia de D o n Juan), Magdeburg, Mainz,
Mantua, Marseilles, Milan, Modena, Montivilliers, Moscow, Mulhouse, Munich,
xii PREFACE
Namur, Naples, Narbonne, Nemi, New Y o r k (American Numismatic Society),
Nicosia, Nijmegen, Nimes, Odessa, Oporto, Orange, Oxford University, Oxford
(Christ Church), Palermo, Paris, Parma, Pesaro, Philadelphia University, Prague,
Ptuj, Pujol, Ravenna, Rennes, Riedlingen, Rome (Museo Nazionale), Rome (Museo
Capitolino), Rottweil, Saalburg, S. Bertrand de Comminges, St Florian, Saint
Germain-en-Laye, Schotten Stift, Skoplje, Sofia, Stockholm, Strasbourg, Stuttgart,
Tarragona, Tartu, Tomar, Tubingen University, Tunis (Bado), T u r i n , Utrecht, the
Vatican, Vienna, Vienna (Romisches Museum), Vienna University, Vienne, W i n -
chester, Winterthur, Xanten, Yale University, Zagreb, Zurich [see also Addenda].
I want, too, to express my thanks to the following private collectors who have
generously shown me their coins: Signor A . Castoldi, M r N . G. L . Hammond,
Hauptmann L . Hollschek, D r L . A . Lawrence, M r R. C. Lockett, Monsieur A . Nier,
Jonkheer F. Scharp. Professor T . O. Mabbott and the late Professor E. T . Newell
kindly sent me descriptions o f coins i n their possession. I must also record the use
o f other private collections, past and present: M M . Adda, Arendt, Baeth, Berli-
chingen, Braun, Brenner, Caballero Infante, Carelli, Cavierzel, Coliez, Delagarde,
Fischer, Gago, Gamier, Glanville, Guy on, Hall, Hengen, Honisch, Hoffmann,
Korperich, Kotschoubey, Landolina-Paterno, Louis, Mavromichalis, Michahelles,
Grand Duke Mihailovitch, Odescalchi, Comte du Palin, Baron Pennisi di Floristella,
Peter, Philbert, Prowe, Pujol y Santo, Quadras, y Ramon, Rauch, Rothelin, Rubio,
Sanahuja, Sanchez de la Cotera, Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg, Schreiber, Seripopoli,
de Sousa Vilhena, Count Stroganoff, Urbano, Count Uwaroff, Vila, Welter, and an
unnamed collector i n Minas de S. Domingos. Reference to other collections has
been possible through sale-catalogues, and I am grateful to the dealers who produced
these catalogues and who have given me a kind welcome.-
I have a profound obligation to the Director o f the British Non-Ferrous Metal
Research Association, and to M r D . M . Smith o f its Research Department, for
carrying out for me a large number o f spectrographic analyses; also to the Chiswick
Press for the difficult photographic undertaking represented by the Plates.
Finally, I owe a great debt o f gratitude to the Syndics o f the Cambridge U n i -
versity Press for accepting this w o r k ; and to the Master and Fellows o f T r i n i t y
College, Cambridge, for a generous grant from the Rouse Ball Fund towards the
cost o f publication.
I had completed the manuscript o f the book by July 1939; the postponement o f
its publication has been largely due to my subsequent lack o f time for proof-reading.

A N K A R A , 1945 MICHAEL GRANT

NOTE ON T H E C.U.P.L.E. REPRINT

I n addition to a number o f corrections, this reprint incorporates (on page 511) a

list o f page references to the plates. This was compiled by the late D r Karl Pink
and published i n the Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1946-7, p. 138. I t is included here
by the kind permission o f the Austrian Numismatic Society.
G A T T A I O L A , 1969 MICHAEL GRANT
 xiii

ADDENDA & CORRIGENDA

Under this heading w i l l be grouped a few conclusions and observations reached as
a result o f the latest publications and (particularly) o f the writer's recent travels
in and near Anatolia. Lists o f the numerous recent coin-finds i n this area, and o f
relevant 1940-1945 publications (the bibliography on p. 486 only goes up to 1939),
will not be set out here, since only those w i l l be quoted which actually amplify,
confirm or correct facts or views described in this book.

p. xi. Add Gotha to acknowledgments.

p. 15 n. 8. The attribution of the Q. coinage to this area is corroborated by the discovery of
yet another specimen in Istanbul—five years later (own collection).
p. 22 n. 5. These comments regarding the Pompeian asses are underlined by the discovery
of an isolated specimen of Cnaeus as far East as Lycaonia (Konya museum—found locally).
p. 45 1. 9, n. 2-. Two specimens of the issue of Bibulus have also been found near Nicosia
(acquired by the writer there). This evidence, added to the other, makes it advisable at least
to keep open the possibility that Bibulus continued to coin after his return to the East.
p. 67 (cf. p. 383). An important contemporary parallel to Proculeius is provided by a certain
C. Baebius T . f. Clu. tr. mi[L leg. x]x. praef. ora[e mariu Hi]span. citer[ioris b]ello Actiens[i]
(Barbieri, Rivista di filologia, 1942, p. 274, cf. Henzen, Bull. Corr. Arch. 1874, p. 119). For a
similar title six years earlier, see p. 46. It would be interesting to know the official relationship
between Baebius and C. Calvisius Sabinus (p. 160).
p. 85 n. 3. Under the Republic the maximum occurrence of zinc is actually about 4 % (Forbes,
Jaarboek van het Vooraiiatisch-Egyptisch Ge^elschap Ex Oriente Lux, vni, 1942, p. 753). Forbes,
ibid., points out that, in spite of its high value under Caesar, orichalcum actually gained in value
vis-a-vis copper during the Empire (p. 88 n. 8).
p. 92. The statistics of circulation given here and elsewhere (e.g. pp. 71, 101, 105, 116, etc.)
do not of course prove that all the circulation in question occurred as early as the principate of
Augustus. There is, on the other hand, a general presumption that a not inconsiderable proportion
of circulation evidence regarding coins minted during any single period applies to the decades
immediately following the date of mintage. A study of countermarks (e.g. those described on
p. 94) may be considered to provide evidence corroborating this presumption. Those stamps are
all of post-Augustan date, and it seems legitimate to suppose that, until they were affixed, the
coinage circulated without let or hindrance. In the light of the inherent improbability that all
of the extensive circulation statistics are post-Augustan, the opposite conclusion from the date
of the countermarks—namely that the coins were not even introduced into the various provinces
until they were thus stamped—seems less plausible.
Pp. 97 f. Last, JRS. 1940, p. 201, ibid. 1944, pp. 51 ff., shows that the informal origins of
the central fiscus date from Augustus. But the aerarium was still the sole official treasury.
Sutherland, A]P. 1945, pp. 159E, 169, ascribes important developments regarding the fiscus
to Tiberius.
xiv ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA
pp. 98 ff. Eastern SC coinages. The attribution of II (p. 99) to Cyprus (already certain by
analogy) is confirmed by the occurrence of two examples at Nicosia (one acquired by the writer,
and one in Nicosia museum—the former of considerable size and weight, but on this see p. 101).
Additional specimens of I V (pp. 99 f.) have been found at or near Beirut (acquired by the writer),
Adana (ditto), Antakya (Antakya museum—a very thick coin), and Aglasun (Sagalassus in
Pisidia—collection of Commander George C Miles, U.S.N.R.): these finds do not contradict the
assumption of Syrian origin, though they raise an alternative possibility of S.E. Anatolian
mintage. Knowledge of the circulation of V I I I (pp. 100 f.) is likewise enlarged by the discovery
of examples in Mesopotamia (Urfa—in private collection at Aydm), Syria (acquired by writer,
found at or near Antakya), and perhaps Pontus (specimen acquired by writer, believed to have
been found at Samsun).

p. 102 n. 7: perhaps Gabala also (Seyrig, Syria, xx, 1939, pp. 39 fF.). A new group I X
should perhaps be recorded, to include a specimen of un-Syrian (? Cilician) style in Antakya
museum.
pp. 102ff. CA andAVGVSTVS coinages. Possibly two or three additional mints should be
added here: (i) it is tempting to add a Phrygian one, characterised by particularly thick flans, an
unusual feature common to all three of the specimens in this category in Afyonkarahisar museum,
found locally (two C A sestertii and one A V G V S T V S as); (ii) Nicosia museum contains a small
C A coin with obverse inscription C A I S A R (cf. p. 107), differing in style from other C A issues
including the known Cypriot group (p. 106), and therefore suggesting a second Cyprus mint.
If this exists, the two mints are likely to be Salamis and Paphos. Furthermore a dupondius of so-
called 'European* group ' B * (p. 107) was apparently found near the latter city (Nicosia museum),
and perhaps suggests the reallotment of part of this subdivision to Cyprus, (iii) Large thin
pieces with very broad heads, in Adana and Antakya museums, indicate the possibility of
a Cilician (?) mint.
Circulation statistics of the principal 'Asian* groups can now be added to as follows: Lydia
( A V G V S T V S as, p. 105 n. 4, at Aydm—in private collection there), Lycaonia ( C A dupondius
near Konya—Konya museum), Cilicia ( C A dupondius near Adana, acquired there by the writer; and
A V G V S T V S asses at Adana—Adana museum; Antakya—writer's collection, found locally, of
both " A " and " B " types; and Mara§—Ankara museum). It is probable that, as further material
comes to light, various additional ramifications will appear. The two Afyonkarahisar sestertii
mentioned above differ from each other in portraiture though not in style. This diversity appears
to be a special feature of C A sestertii and not, in this particular case, to indicate difference of
mint.
p. i n n. 16. The presence of the central mint of the 'colonist' coins in Mysia-Troas is further
indicated by the appearance of very large numbers of them, at all times, among finds brought to
Istanbul. N. 20: also found in Cilicia (Tiberius at Adana—in Adana museum).
pp. 139 f. Another proconsul of Africa, shortly before or after Passienus, can now be identified
in L . Caninius L. f. Gallus (Fahrmann, AA. 1940, pp. 551 f.).
pp. 154 ff. Henderson, JRS. 1942, p. 7, doubts whether Caesar gave any charter to Emporiae,
whereas she considers Romula (p. 220) to be a colonia of Caesar restored by Augustus; she includes
Sexi and Obulco (p. 473, nn. 5, 9) among Augustan municipia.
 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA xv
p. 165. The writer now feels that the association of the bull type with T . Statilius Taurus by a
jeu de mots is, though not impossible, rather a long shot.
p. 180 n. 12. On the alternative lex Antonia de coloniis deducendis (cf. pp. 246, 274) see Berger,
PIT. Suppl. v i i , 416.
pp. 194 fF. (and pp. 235 fF.). Kahrstedt, Klio, N.F. xvii, 1942, p. 255, seems to over-simplify
in concentrating Augustan enfranchisement in Sicily at two dates only, to which he assigns six
and nine (?) charters respectively.
p. 215 n. 9 (cf. p. 212 n. 3). Cf. L . Porcius IHvir IHIvir augur on an Ilici inscription (CIL. n .
Suppl 5950).
p. 236. This coin must be attributed to Dyme in Achaia (p. 264 no. 2).
p. 244 n. 16. One was probably found in Cilicia (Adana museum): but so too was an
equally rare contemporary coin of another north Anatolian city—see Addendum to p. 255.
p. 250. I f Ramsay, The Social Basis of Roman Power in Asia Minorp. 184, is right in
ascribing a (re)foundation of Lystra to Cornutus Arruntius Aquila legatus Augusti in 6 B.C.,
then the continued use of the epithet Iulia—without Augusta yet, cf. Pi. V I I I , 11—presumably
bears witness to the influence of C . Caesar (cf. pp. 259 f., 239 n. 7). But the coin, though later
than 6 B.C., commemorates the jubilee of the first foundation.
p. 255 (2) (n. 7). See Addendum to p. 244, above. The presence together of these two at
Adana museum strongly suggests some special cause irrelevant to mintage.
p. 269 n. 4 (cf. p. 402 n. 3). 'Cistophoric' tetradachms of Augustus circulated equally widely,
at least in the East: the writer has noted finds in Ionia (near Izmir—Commander George C .
Miles's collection), Phrygia (Afyonkarahisar museum), Lydia (private collection at Aydin),
Lycaonia {BMC. Imp. Aug. 691—see p. 424 n. 4—at Cihanbeyli, in private possession there;
and another near Konya—seen in trade there), Pisidia (at Egridir—belonging to the local Kai-
makam) and Melitene (near Malatya—Commander G . C . Miles's collection).
pp. 298 f. n. 22. Further finds of post-Augustan colonial pieces of Antioch in Pisidia have
been noted near Antalya (Antalya museum), at Konya, Ankara and in N.W. Anatolia (own
collection), at Adana (Adana museum), and at Ugin and Nigjde (Konya museum). Similar evidence
could be collected of other colonies in Asia minor, etc.
p. 301. The citizen, as opposed to his city, probably still contributed rather than profited
(cf. pp. 203, 367).
p. 312 n. 1. But no birth-certificates as early as Augustus are extant (Schulz, JRS. 1942, pp. 78 fF.).
p. 350 n. 6. Friedrich, PW. xx, 1, 828, appears to consider Fulvia as a separate foundation
from Eumenia.
p. 361 (cf. pp. 75,463 fF.). Further light is thrown by Schweitzer, Rom. Mitt, LVH, 1942, p. 97
(Dresden cameo), on the Claudian date of portraits hitherto considered as Augustan.
p. 401 n. 8. Phrygian Apamea may perhaps be added to the list of appreciable contributors: its
Augustan coinage figures very largely in finds from that region (many in Afyonkarahisar museum).
p. 414. It is probable that most coinage of colonies and municipia before 27 B.C. emanated
from this imperium (cf. pp. 10, 34, 274; but see p. 317 nn. 7, 8).
xvi ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA
p. 415 n. 1. On these preliminary steps see Last, JRS. 1945, p. 125, who also points out
that Salmon, History of the Roman World (1944), p. 5, misleads by calling the praenomen
'permanent from c. 30 B.C.* (cf. p. 417 n. 11).
p. 417. Staedler, Sav.Z. 1942, p. 118, considers that the principate can be said to have
started in 32 B.C. Kornemann, Romische Geschichte, 11 (1939), pp. 121 ff., stresses the autocratic
character of the ensuing five years, pace Kolbe, Klio, 1943, p. 43.

p. 426 n. 1. The provincia could surely be confirmed with each new consulship, pace Salmon,
I.e. p. 339, though it had been allotted for a longer period (p. 434; see Last, JRS. 1943,
p. 104). Siber, Abh. Leipzig, XLIV, 2, 1940, still adhered to his reluctance to describe Augustus's
imperium in either sort of province as 'proconsular', cf. Schwartz, Revue de philologie, 1945, p. 40,
pace Wickert, Klio, N.F. xvi, 1942, p. 144. Siber's avoidance of the description 'proconsular'
applies to the period after 23 B.C. also (Sav.Z. 1944, pp. 261 ff., cf. Abh. Leipzig, I.e. pp. 38 ff.).

p. 426 n. 9 (cf. pp. 452 f. n. 5). Staedler, Sav.Z. 1943, pp. 384ff., restates with variations the
theory of the legalised auctoritas, which is rejected by Strack, Die alten Spracken, 1939, pp. 197 ff.,
Miiller-Graupa, Phil. IVoch. 1940, p. 93 n. 2, and again by Siber, Abh. Leipzig, 1940, p. 78, and
Kiibler, Sav. Z. 1940, p. 325.
p. 429 n. 12. Germanicus may not have received the imperium until 14 (Kroll, PW. x, 438,
cf. Schwartz, I.e. p. 37 n. 1).
p. 431 n. 9. Wenger, Sav.Z. 1942, p. 428, sums up Die Tatsache bleibt dass Augustus auch
in Kyrene regierte; Visscher, Recueil des Travaux d'Histoire et de Philologie de VUniversiti de
Louvain, 1940, pp. 38 ff., Last, JRS. 1945, p. 93, pronounce for imperium as the basis. These
three writers discuss the significance of dico (p. 432 n. 12).
p. 433 n.^J4. The rudimentary fiscus however (see addendum to pp. 97'f.) was Augustus'
property (Eliachevitch, La Personnalite Juridique en Droit Privi Romain [1942], cf. Kaden,
Sav.Z. 1944, p. 442 n. 23), rather than a product of his auctoritas (as Bolla, Die Entwicklung
des Fiscus {um Privatsrechtssubject [1939], p. 38).
p. 434 n. 4. Together with 27 and 23 B.C., Kornemann, Romische Geschichte, 11 (1939), p. 129,
rightly considers 12 and 2 B.C. to be the decisive dates in the foundation of the principate.
p. 437 n. 1. Last, JRS. 1943, p. 104, still rejects Dio L I I I , 32, 5.
p. 442 n. 8. Mention should have been made here (and on p. 91) of the inauguration of
official Roman aes by the type of Numa Pompilius (BMC. Imp. p. 28, NZ. 1919, pp. 105 f.).
Did a 'Numa period' follow the 'Romulus period' (on which see p. 424 and Borzsak, Archivium
Philologicum, 1943, pp. i8of.)?
p. 444. Instinsky, Hermes, 1942, p. 346, follows the erroneous view that pater patriae was
a 'title of magistracy', cf. Staedler, Sav.Z. 1941, pp. 88ff., ioiff., 105, 119, for princeps and
Augustus, of which he detects a conferment as cognomen in 19 B.C. or a little before (p. 120).

p. 449 n. 3. Jus auxilii and intercessio are still considered the essential features of the
tribunicia potestas by T ° P > Ephemeris Dacoromana, 1940, p. 173, Kornemann, Gestalten und
a

Reiche (1943), p. 465.

 ADDENDA AND CORRIGENDA xvii
p. 453, line 6. This reference to a ' committee' does not sufficiently stress Tiberius' chair-
manship of it, cf. p. 430 above, Kornemann, Grosse Frauen des Alter turns (1942), pp. 199 ff.,
id., Gestalten und Reicke, pp. i57ff., etc. Volkmann, Bursians Jahresberichte, 276,1942, pp. 78 ff.,
rightly criticises Staedler's view (Sav.Z. 1942, pp. 84 ff., cf. 1944, p. 368) of a formal eiuratio
by Augustus accompanied by the publication of the Res Gestae.

p. 458. Groag, PIR. 2

i n (1943), 15. 72, adds A . Didius Postumus to the Fasti of Cyprus
(soon after 22 B.C.).

pp. 463 ff. (cf. pp. 75, 328 ff.). Appendix 7 comprises uninscribed portraits that have been
attributed to Augustus as well as those inscribed as S E B A Z T O I etc. Their classifications
according to principates are necessarily very approximate and only intended as a general guide.
But recent publications, including those of Poulsen, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab,
Archaeologisk-Kunsthistorisk Middelelser, I I , 5, 1939, Goethert, Rom. Mitt. 1939, pp. 176 ff.,
Curtius, ibid. 1940, pp. 36 ff., Toynbee, JRS. 1941, pp. 188 f., Sutherland, NC. 1941, pp. 97 ff.,
Schweitzer, Klio, 1941, pp. 328 ff., id. Rom. Mitt. 1942, pp. 92 ff., Hohl, Klio, 1942, pp. 227 ff.,
1943, p. 144, etc., seem to leave these classifications more or less unaffected.

p. 463 (1). A coin of Mallus (Berlin = Wellenheim 6213; another acquired by the writer at
Adana) has the reverse of the piece here attributed to Caligula's principate (p. 464 n. 20, pi. X I I , 18),
but a head facing left with the features of Tiberius.

p. 476. Other possible additions are, in Asia, Midaeum (coin in private collection at Aydin)
and Synnada (own collection, found near Konya); and, in Syria-Cilicia, Magydus (Antalya
museum).

Pi. I I , 8. The reverse of this coin is inadvertently represented sideways.

 Parti
T H E O F F I C I A L COINAGES

INTRODUCTION
| H E pieces whose significance is discussed i n this Part are those struck i n aes
by the representatives o f the Roman res publica, that is, by the officials who
acted, or claimed to act, on its behalf. The differentiation o f these series from
JL local issues does not usually cause great difficulty, since most city-currencies
bear the name, i f not o f their town, at least o f one or more o f its representatives or
institutions. Except on a few insignificant local coins which are too small to show
1
any o f these signs, their absence entitles us to postulate official authority.
The two Chapters which follow attempt a survey o f these official issues and an
estimation o f the historical importance o f each. The historical turning-point is the year
27 B.C., when auctoritasprincipis superseded imperium as the origin o f coinage. Statistics
reveal the remarkable extent to which even these official issues have been neglected.
There are about 93 mint-groups, o f which 39 are o f the period treated by the British
Museum Catalogue of Republican Coins, and the remaining 54 are i n the sphere o f its
Imperial counterpart; yet the former o f these publications only recognises the character
of 17 out o f the 39 groups—and, i n the present writer's opinion, describes only three
of them correctly—while the masterly Imperial Catalogue is permitted to rescue only
about 10 groups (under five general headings) from the less appropriate catalogues o f
1
There are, however, some cases where the dis- conditions of (2 b) are occasionally fulfilled when no
tinction is not clear. The following special condi- name of an official, but only a mint-mark, appears,
tions are considered to justify inclusion in the present On the other hand, certain classes must be elimin-
Part. (1) The signature of a colonial founder from ated for addition to other categories. (1) Local coins
Rome, when the scope of his activity, and of his whose only ethnic is in the form of a type parlant or
coinage, embraces more than one foundation; local era; (2) Issues by small Asiatic, Gallic and
(2) The conjunction of an ethnic with the name of a Spanish tribes whose status is merely a substitute for
Roman official, when (a) it can be established that municipal organisations; (3) Coinage in the name
the latter is mentioned as a responsible authority of Cleopatra or her children in the territories which
rather than by courtesy, (b) there is evidence of ex- nominally belonged to them, unless the name of a
tended circulation, indicating that the ethnic is Roman provincial official indicates that no trans-
merely the mint-mark on an official issue; (3) The ference had in fact taken place.
2 INTRODUCTION
Greek coins. Other works recognise the official character o f 33 additional groups, o f
which, i f all the contributions of heterogeneous and scattered publications be collected,
no more than 17 have been even once correctly attributed. Thus, o f the 93 dis-
coverable groups, only 25 appear to have received acceptable interpretations, and these
have been sporadic and often remote. As many as 36 different pieces appear to be
unpublished. Yet this was the currency, not o f local communities, but o f the Roman
government itself: i t provides direct and official evidence, to an extent which mere
statistics cannot reveal, for the administration and constitution o f the Empire during
this vital evolutionary period.
The coinages before and after 27 B.C. are summarised i n Appendices 1 and 2
respectively.
 3

Chapter 1
C O I N A G E BY IMPERIUM MAWS, 49-28 B.C.
A T the time o f Caesar's dictatorship the Roman aes had not yet recovered from
1
/ \ the crises which had caused its suppression i n the eighties. Official coinage i n
X X this medium only survived at Panormus, where quaestors issued a long series
of quartuncial asses (p. 26). I n the fifties, or thereabouts, a few pieces were struck b y
Roman magistrates i n Crete* and Sicily (at Lilybaeum [p. 26], Agrigentum [p. 28],
3 4
Syracuse ); at the end o f the decade A . Hirtius signs an issue i n the country o f the
Treveri ( P i . I X , 25).* W i t h the possible exception o f the last, whose denomination is
6
uncertain, these were fiduciary currency, which was possible i n Hellenised provinces
since the principle had long been familiar to the Greek world.? But no attempt was
8
made to introduce token coinage into I t a l y : as Mattingly says, 'bimetallism was at last
breaking down, but rather than avow the abandonment o f the use o f bronze as a true
value-money, the Romans preferred to suspend its issue and to shelve the problem*.
1
Cf. Mattingly, RC. p. 26; Lenormant, La denarii, probably Gallic of 50-49 B.C., the issue
monnaie dans Vantiquite, I I , p. 204. may with the greatest probability be ascribed to
2
Robinson, BMC. Cyrenaica, p. 131. 1, cf. 50, pace Maxe-Werly, Rb. 1888, p. 435. It is distinct
pp. ccxi f.: types of head of Minerva and bee. These from later tribal issues with the name of Hirtius
coins may possibly be as early as the sixties. (p. 391).
3
Holm in, p. 707. 557. 5 Grueber, BMCR. 1, p. 526; Lenormant, l.c.
4
BMCR. 1, p. 526; Babelon, Monnaies de la 11, p. 315; Blanchet, l.c. p. 383; Kremer, l.c, show
Ripublique romaine, 1, p. 343; Blanchet, Traiti, p. 427.that Treveran provenance is most frequent: there
The Roman name and type, and the lack of any are many at Trier mus., Luxembourg mus., and at
ethnic or sign of local authority, make it necessary local colls, of MM. Erpelding, Ehlmger, Brenner,
to assume that this was an official issue (pace Babe- Henger, Louis, Coliez, Philbert, Korperich, Arendt,
lon, I.e.), though tribal imitations exist (cf. Babelon, Welter, Gamier, and Difierd. Maxe-Werly, £tat
I.e.). The word CARIN, which he finds on one of actuel de la numismatique rimoise, p. 11, cites other
these and seeks to identify with C. Carrinas—cf. but less extensive finds from the territory of the
Blanchet, I.e. p. 356—is merely a blundered retro- Remi. Decisive is the fact that Caesar's head-
grade version of HIRTIVS (cf. Kremer, Publica- quarters were transferred to Treveran territory in
tions de la section des sciences historiques de VInstitutspring 50 (BG. vm, 52).
Grand-ducal de Luxembourg, LXVH, 1938, p. 19. 6
Cf. Milne, The Development of Roman Coinage,
For variations of the same error vide Blanchet, l.c. p. 21, for the quartuncial standard.
p. 122). Hirtius was in Gaul (where these are found; 7 Cf. Segre, Metrologia e circola\ione degli antichi,
vide next note) in 54-52, 51-50 and 45-44 B.C. p. 251; Burns, Money and Monetary Policy in
(Miinzer, PW. vm, 1956 f.): since the types are Ancient Times, pp. 288 f.
imitated from (rather than prototypes of) official 8
RC. p. 28.
 COINAGE BY IMPERIUM MAIUS, 4 9 - 2 8 B.C.

A. T H E C A E S A R I A N S

Under the imperium mains o f Caesar there were several curious and sporadic attempts
to revive this coinage. O f the four issues which can be identified, one is entirely un-
published, and the remainder have been gravely misunderstood. By way o f introduc-
tion i t may be pointed out that the issue under Caesar's Gallic command i n Treveran
territory i n 50 had been made and signed, not by a military personage, but by Caesar's
1
own private secretary, A . Hirtius. As dictator also, as w i l l be seen, the former did not
hesitate to entrust coinage, like other functions, to unconstitutional praefecti.

1. CORDUBA
2
The earliest Caesarian issue under the dictatorship consists o f bronze pieces w i t h the
head o f Venus, and the legend C N . I V L I . L . F. Q. O n the reverse is a figure o f Cupid
w i t h cornucopiae and caduceus; i n the field, w i t h three pellets, is C O R D V B A 3 (Pi. 1,1),
4
or C O R D V B A B A L . The conjunction o f the names o f Roman official and o f town-
ship does not cause a real difficulty here. The city-name 'Corduba' was never used
after the establishment o f colonia Patricia. This colony was founded not earlier than
48,5 but a later date than 45 is incompatible w i t h its title; i t must, therefore, have been
carried out during the Pompeian occupation o f c. 46-45. T o this conclusion the
6

absence o f the epithet Iidia is particularly appropriate. Caesar punished the city
7

severely, but the survival o f the title Patricia without addition indicates that he
8

neither degraded nor refounded i t . Exacdy parallel is the retention by Salacia o f the
1
Strack, BJ. cxvm, 1909, p. 190, notes that he Sanchez de la Cotera collection: Hiibner, MLI.
held no military commission in Gaul, and righdy p. 112, no. 124 n.; Vives m, p. 115. 4. This
interprets his post as the directorship of Caesar's coin unfortunately remained inaccessible to me (cf.
administrative bureau: Miinzer, PW. vm, 1957, pp. 145,178 f., 192 n. 2,208, etc). Although Vives's
plausibly suggests that he succeeded Pompeius photograph (pi. CXVIII, 4) is too dim for the read-
Trogus, killed at Atuatuca, whose office is described ing to be confirmed, it can hardly be supposed that
by Justin (XLIII, 12) as epistularumque ac legationum,he and Hiibner invented it. At least the photograph
simul et anuli cura. Hirtius was high in Caesar's shows that the piece is genuine.
favour (Cic. Att. vn, 4. 2, etc.), but was not yet of 5
Cf. Hiibner, CIL. 11, p. 306, correcting
praetorian rank (Miinzer, l.c). The coins bear no erroneous beliefs of an earlier colony (Hiibner, La
tide, and his duties were not those of a quaestor. Arqueologia de Espana, p. 176; Taberner, QAS.
* Spectrogram 54. Copper, lead and tin were all xviii, 1939, P- 16).
available locally: cf. Davies, Roman Mines in 6
Cf. Blok, Sextus Pompeius Magnus Gnaei
Europe, pp. 114, 115, 103 ff. respectively. Filius, Diss. Leyden, 1879, P* 7> Hiibner, PW. iv,
3
BM, Madrid, Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan 1222.
(variants). Delgado 1, p. 125. 1; Vives m, p. 115; 7
Cf. Kornemann, PW. iv, 527. 82.
cf. Hiibner, PW. iv, 1221. 8
Cf. Frank,-ES. 1, p. 317; Meyer, Casars
4
Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan, from Monarchie, p. 485.
1
 THE CAESARIANS 5
title given i t b y Sextus, Imperatoria (p. 409). Octavian likewise was to refrain from
interfering w i t h the patrocinium o f his enemy Antony at Bononia. 1

This issue, then, must be prior to the date o f colonisation, when Corduba was a
peregrine town containing a vicus o f Roman citizens. But the types o f Venus and
2

Cupid indicate a connection w i t h the dictator, and so a date not earlier than 49. This
3

conclusion is i n accordance w i t h the appearance on the coins o f a relative o f his,

Cn. Julius L.f. No doubt this was a son o f L . Julius Caesar:—who was legatus to his
distinguished relative m Gaul —and so a younger brother o f the other Lucius who
4

declared for Pompey;* the noble families, often resorted to such schisms i n order to
play for safety. Cn. Julius L.f. can scarcely be the local Q(uinquennalis) o f peregrine
6

Corduba:7 his connections and all available analogies refer him to a Roman provincial
8
quaestorship. Probably he succeeded M . Marcellus Aeserninus* i n Farther Spain i n
c. 47, and was the quaestor either o f Q. Fabius Maximus or o f Q. Trebonius."
10

The coinage is therefore official i n character, and the ethnic does not represent the
source o f issue, but is merely a mint-mark. Exact parallels to such usage are afforded,
during this period, b y official issues—in aes w i t h V R S O N E , P A N OR., AIA.,
ZA(KUVGOS) and IOAK(nj (pp. 24,26,26,39,66), and in silver w i t h SAL (p. 22), O S C A , IZ

and E M E R I T A (p. 119). By the analogy o f V R S O N E i t is quite possible that C O R -

D V B A is also an Ablative. The circulation o f such currency, i n aes and silver alike,
was not limited to the towns where they were struck. As a provincial quaestor signing
13
this coinage, Cn. Julius follows the regular monetary tradition o f the Republic,
which appears to have been maintained as late as c. 36—35 B.C. (p. 53).
It remains to attempt an explanation o f the abbreviation B A L . N o w i t was cus-
tomary for quaestors to mention on some or all o f their coinage a superior authority,
either i n their province or at home. The former o f these alternatives does not provide
a suitable interpretation, since no known governor o f Hispania Ulterior during this
1 4
period had a name beginning B A L ; and, although the dates o f some o f these are
1
controversial, * there is not room for any fresh importation into the Fasti. The other
1
Suet. Aug. 17. 2; cf. Levi 11, p. 181. But vide 1 0
As Wilsdorf, Fasti Hispaniarum provinciarum,
also Dio L, 6. 3. Diss. Leipzig, 1878, p. 131.
2
Cf. Hubner, PW. iv, 1221; Sutherland, RIS. 1 1
AsLetz,DieProviniialverwaltungCasars,biss.
p. 117. Strassburg, 1912, p. 31.
<* Eckhel, DN. 1, p. 18; Syme, RR. p. 66 n. 3. 1 2
BMCR. 11, p. 373. 109.
4
Miinzer, PW. x, 469 (143). x
3 E.g. BMCR. 11, p. 355. 32 (L. Fabius His-
5
Ibid. 471 (144); Syme, RR. pp. 64 n. 3, paniensis), p. 356. 35 (C. Tarquitius), p. 463. 16
*9 '
2
(A. Manlius); Babelon, Monnaies ae la ripublique
6
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 64. romaine, 1, p. 408. 32 (Q.), etc.
7
As Delgado 1, pp. 128 f. 1 4
The identification by Florez with L . Cornelius
8
As Florez, ap. Delgado, l.c.; Bulz, De Provinci- Balbus minor is unacceptable, since he did not arrive
arum Romanarum Quaestoribus, Diss. Leipzig, 1893, in Spain until c 45 B.C. and was not even quaestor
P- 14- until 44/3 (Groag, PW. iv, 1269; Syme, RR. p. 80).
9
Cf. Dio XLII, 15; Bulz, l.c. p. 12. «S Cf. Wilsdorf, Letz, Bulz, ll.cc.
6 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
1
possibility is exemplified by quaestorian issues reading L . T O R Q V A . Q. E X S. C.,
2
M . SERGIVS SILVS Q. E X S. C., C N . L E N . Q. E X S. C.3 But the senatorial
formula could scarcely be expected during the years 49-45, for the excellent reason
that no State affairs o f any kind were entrusted to the senate by the absent dictator.
4
Caesar claimed that his offer to that body o f a share i n the government had been
6
rejected,* and entrusted all business to his two personal representatives —with no rank
in the government 7—whose influence on provincial officials was precisely that pre-
8
viously maintained by the senate. The foremost o f these t w o men was the knight or
ex-knight9 L . Cornelius Balbus maior: i t must be more than a mere coincidence that
10

B A L appears on the quaestorian coinage o f this period where E X S. C. had stood

before. N o t only does the evidence o f denarii and o f the literary authorities confirm
that he is the signatory o f these coins, but the aes o f the period provides twofold
analogies. A precisely similar agent Hirtius—with whom, incidentally, Balbus was i n
the closest co-operation —had been responsible for Caesar's Gallic aes (p. 3), and
11

the next coinage w i l l supply the signature o f an equally unconstitutional praefectus

(p. 7). The evidence o f Balbus's omnipotence is overwhelming: i n his hands were
condiciones pads et arbitria belli. Included within this sweeping assertion are all the
17.

departments o f finance which the enforced paralysis o f the senate had deprived o f the
power to function : 3 we actually hear o f the staff o f Balbus's bureau which took over
J 14

their duties, at least until the appointment o f eight praefecti urbi i n 46.^ The activities
16
o f Balbus were automatically ratified by the dictator. Thus he, and not the senate, was
in a position to grant the right o f coinage to Cn. Julius, quaestor o f Farther Spain. I t is
interesting to note that, like Hirtius and Pansa (p. 396), to w h o m also Caesar entrusted
x
coinage, Balbus was himself, i n his private capacity, an important financier ; ? very
probably these men were permitted to make their concession profitable to themselves
as well as to Caesar (p. 19). A n additional reason for the appearance o f Balbus's name
18
may well have been his origin from the province. I n the same way his nephew,
L . Balbus minor, is later commemorated on the coinage o f Gades (p. 172).

1
BMCR. 11, p. 270. 518. cf. Syme, RR. p. 81; pace Tyrrell and Purser, l.c.
2
Ibid. p. 269. 512. p. lxvii. Munzer, l.c. 1266 reserves his judgment.
3
Ibid. p. 358. 52. 1 0
Cf. Cic. Att. vm, ix passim, x, 11, xi, 6. 7,
4
Caesar, Bell. Civ. 1, 32. 7. X I I , 12; Fam. ix, 19; Gellius, NA. xvii, 9. 1,
5 Cf. Wickert, Klio, 1937, p. 245; Opper- etc.
mann, Neue Wege iur Antike, 11, 2, 1933, pp. 1 1
Cic. Att. xiv, 20. 4, 21. 2.
27, 94- " Tac. Ann. xii, 60.
6
For collections of material, vide Munzer, PW. 1 3
Cf. Adcock, CAH. x, p. 694.
ix, 1264 ff.; Tyrrell and Purser, Cicero*s Letters, Cic. Att. xi, 22.
1 4

iv, pp. lxviiff.;Jullian, De L. Cornelio Balbo maiore, 5 Dio XLHI, 28.

x

Diss. Paris, 1886. 1 6

Cic. Fam. vi, 8.
Munzer, l.c. 1265.
7 x
l For similar indications concerning moneyers
8
Tyrrell and Purser, l.c. p. lxix. of orickalcum, see p. 89.
9 He was probably not a member of the senate; 1 8
Munzer, l.c.
 THE CAESARIANS 7
Here, then, is a sidelight on Caesar's revolutionary—or makeshift—administrative
methods. The choice o f Corduba for the mint, which this unusual executive machinery
produced, is easily explicable by its position as a military centre. These bronze coins
may well be composed o f the famous aes Marianum or Cordubense (p. 87). By all
precedents, the three pellets on the reverses should be a mark o f value for quadrans:
1
the heaviest o f these coins approximate to the traditional uncial standard.

2. M E D I O L A N U M (?)

Another element i n the revival o f aes under new management i n the lifetime o f Julius
2
has aroused a very extensive, but inaccurate, controversy. Coins o f fine style bear
the draped bust, to right, o f Winged Victory (sometimes w i t h a star i n the field), and
CAESAR D I C . T E R . ; on the reverse, w i t h the inscription C. C L O V I . PRAEF., is
Minerva walking to left, carrying a shield w i t h the head o f Medusa on its face, and also
3 4
a trophy and objects that Laffranchi, following Cavedoni and Dressel,* identifies as
6
Thessalian arms, referring to Pharsalus.
7
The fine workmanship led Cavedoni to attribute the series to some Eastern
province; but Roman denarii* offer many analogies, and w h y should a Greek not have
been employed i n the West? For similar reasons Laffranchi's? recent comparison o f
10
other heads o f Winged Victory—not, incidentally, very like the present ones —on
local coins o f Philomelium fails completely to prove their attribution to that town, or
to any other i n its neighbourhood. Such attempts to attribute official mints from local
analogies are based on an entirely fallacious principle (p. 122). I n his study o f these
coins Laffranchi, like others, has completely neglected provenance. Specimens have
12 13 14 1
been found at Sinalungo (Florence)," Capua, Este, Xanten, Kaiseraugst (Basel), *
16 17
Rottenburg (Wtimemberg), Rokytzan (Bohemia); probably also at Painten (Ober-
18 1 20 21
pfalz), Orlagau (Brandenburg), * i n Aquitaine, and i n the Graubiinden (Grisons).
1
BM. 108, 101 grains; 71, 51 grains. Noti^ie degli scavi, 1898, p. 276.
2
BMCR. I , p. 539. 4125. * Ruggiero, Degli scavi dxantkhita nelle province
x

3
Historia, IX, 1935, p. 57. di terraferma dell* antico regno diNapoli, 1888, p. 287.
4
Appendke al Saggio (1835), p. 67 f. Noti{ie degli scavi, 1883, p. 411.
1 3

5
ZfN. 1910, pp. 365 ff. 1 4
Steiner, Cat. Xanten mus. p. 84.
6
A specimen from the Leipzig collection (sale 1 5
Basel mus.
1853, p. 182. 3673), with a reverse type of a warrior 1 6
Nestle, Funde, p. 64; in trade, Rottenburg.
and a serpent, is undoubtedly a forgery. 1 7
Bolin, Fynden, Bilagor, p. 112.
7
Annali dell'Inst, di corr. arch. 1850, p. 152. Verhandlung des historischen Vereins von Ober-
1 8

8
Pace de Saulcy, Mimoires de la Sociiti francaise pfcu\* xxvi, p. 114.
de numismatique et d'archeologie, 1873, P? • 1 1
Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fiir
1 9

9
Historia, ix, 1935, p. 55. Anthropologic usw., xil, 1880, p. 131.
1 0
They resemble heads of Fulvia (p. 350), and 2 0
Bordeaux mus.
are thus attributable to a later date: cf. particularly 2 1
Mitteilungen der antiquarischen Gesellschaft in
PI. VH, 52. Zurich, xxvi, 1903, p. 39.
8 COINAGE BY IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

The fact that no finds from the Eastern provinces can be set against these is as i m -
1 2 3
portant as such evidence can ever be. Willers recants his previous assumption o f a
Spanish find, and Laffranchi's corrections o f HavercampV often accepted 5 (but i n any
case inconclusive) interpretation o f Minerva's trappings as Spanish has removed all
6
cause for attribution to that peninsula. Gnecchi guessed that the issue was Sicilian
8
merely on account o f the Greek style; Grueber? and Milne prefer Rome, owing to an
unfortunate comparison w i t h a bronze piece o f Plancus Praefectus) Vrb(is)f which is
i n fact a forgery. I n any case, Clovius cannot be a praefectus urbis, since genuine
10

11
coins struck by these officials do not omit the qualifying Genitive. N o r are other
conjectures any more satisfactory: Cavedoni considers him a praefectus classis,
12

W i l l e r s an extra-ordinary praefectus aereflando feriundo^ Munzer (following M o m m -

13 14

sen's groundless attribution to Spain) a praefectus fabrum. T w o courses o f research can

be combined to produce a more suitable identification. I t w i l l first be shown that
literary and epigraphic sources contribute a member o f the gens Clovia (Cluvia) *5 who
held a prominent appointment when this coin was struck: then an unpublished
numismatic inscription w i l l be cited to show the peculiar applicability o f the title and
task o f that official to the present coinage.
I n the autumn o f 45 Cicero ? writes to a C.(?) Cluvius, who has already left for
16 x

18 20
Gallia Cisalpina to supervise land settlements. Borghesi,^ followed b y Bonazzi,
assigns these coins to him, but wrongly calls h i m 'governor'—C. Vibius Pansa
21
Caetronianus held this post —and makes no attempt to explain his title. However,
the attribution o f the coins to this personage is not stopped b y Laffranchi's limitation
of the issue to 46," which is incorrect since Julius was D I C . T E R . until December 45. 23

24
Similar emissaries i n the same year are M . Rutilius, o f unknown rank, and Q. Valerius
1
They also invalidate the suggestion of Milne, 1 1
BMCR. 1, p. 537. 4118 fF.
Development of Roman Coinage, p. 21, that the Appendice al Saggio, p. 63; cf. Lenormant, La
1 2

issues were medallic. (This view is intended to monnaie dans Vantiquite', 11, pp. 312 f.
explain the supposed exceptional use of the Roman 1 3
Geschichte, p. 104.
mint.) 1 4
PW. iv, 120 (4).
2
Geschichte, p. 107. *5 For orthographical identity, cf. Lewis and
3
NZ. xxxiv, 1902, p. 46. Short, p. 1231.
4
Morelli, Familiarum Romanarum Numismata, Tyrrell and Purser, ad l.c (DCLXXIV) n.
1 6

11, p. 97. *7 Ram. XIII, 7.

5 E.g. by Mommsen, M^w. p. 654 n. 552; 1 8
Munzer, Tyrrell and Purser, ll.cc.
Ribbeck, Senatores Romani etc., Diss. Berlin, 1899, (Euvres, 1, p. 148.
p. 16, no. 57. 2 0
RM. 1920, p. 157.
6
Gnecchi, R.it. xv, 1902, p. 17. 2 1
Cf. Sternkopf, Hermes, XLVII, 1912, p. 328.
NC. 1904, pp. 235
7
ff. 2 2
L.c. p. 52; cf. Stella Maranca, l.c.
L.c. p. 21: cf. also Stella Maranca, Memorie
8 2 3
Mommsen, CIL. 1, p. 451; cf. Schnabel, Klio,
della R. Ac. dei Lincei (sc.-mor.),vi,2,i^26,p. ^6. xix, 1925, p. 354; Andersen, Neue Deutsche
9 BMCR. 1, p. 538. 4124. Forschungen, cxcvi, 1938, p. 24.
Laftranchi, Historia, ix, 1935; Mattingly is of
1 0 2 4
C i c Fam. xm, 8; cf. Munzer, PW. (iR.), 1,
the same opinion. 1248; Zumpt, Commenta Epigraphica, 1, p. 301.
 THE CAESARIANS 9
Orca legatus pro praetor-e i n Italy, and T i . Claudius Nero, an ex-quaestor i n G a u l ;
1 2

in 44 L . Plautius (originally C. Munatius) Plancus praetor designates is similarly

4
occupied i n Epirus.s Nero was sent to found Narbo and Arelate, and L . Plautius
Plancus to superintend the allotments o f a new colony at Buthrotum.5 I n Cisalpina,
where Cluvius was employed, not only had lands to be found for the veterans, but i t is
unlikely that the Civil War had hitherto allowed time for the completion o f the colonial
and municipal foundations resulting from the general enfranchisement o f the Lex
6

Roscia (49 B . C . ) , and the supplementary law (probably not yet the LexRubria)
7
of which
8
the Atestine fragment is a part: even at Caesar's death the process had not sufficiently
developed for Gallia Cisalpina to be a part o f Italy, and so without a governor.* Hence
10
the special importance o f Cluvius, which Cicero is at pains to underline.
Thus, i n 45-44, the dictator's representatives were busy allotting land and founding
colonies on both sides o f the frontier o f Italy. Moreover, beyond i t at least, each
possessed independent control over the foundation which- was entrusted to him.
Munzer considers that L . Plautius Plancus at Buthrotum was one o f a body of Illviri
11

agris dandis adsignandis, i n the Republican tradition. But deductiones had been carried
12
out by all three o f such officials i n conjunction, while Cicero makes i t abundantly clear
that Plancus alone was i n control i n Epirus: praesertim cum tota potestas eius rei tua
sit —omnia
13
posita putamus in Planci tui liberalitate. * 1
The latter sentiment is even i n -
cluded i n a letter to one o f the supposed colleagues o f Plancus. There is no indication
whatever that these, C. Ateius Capito and C. Cupiennius, were more than his sub-
ordinates, or perhaps merely people with a financial interest i n the foundation. I n
writing to Rutilius and Orca Cicero dwells w i t h no less emphasis on the unhampered
x
initiative o f both these commissioners. * Caesar had obtained the right to make
colonies through his personal representatives as early as the Lex Vatinia o f 59, and 16

he clung to i t , unmoved by the condemnation o f this practice b y the consul M .

Marcellus as per ambitionem et ultra praescriptum.^ Indeed, the Illviri agris dandis
adsignandis and coloniis deducendis were not employed for the foundations o f his

1
Fam. XIII, 5. nummis M. Antonii etc., Diss. Leyden, 1883, p. 97,
2
Munzer, PW. 111, 2778. App. 2; Jullian, TP. p. 1; cf. Donatus, Vita Verg.
3
Cf. Munzer, PW. xvi, 542. Not Cnaeus (as 19 [30]; see also below, p. 438.
Borghesi, (Suvres, 1, p. 203). The Cluvii subsequently attained patrician
1 0

4
Suet. Ti. 4. 5 Cic. Att. xvi, i6a-e. rank; Pais, Ricerche sulfa storia ecc, ser. 11, p. 408.
6
Hardy, Some Problems in Roman History, p. 290. PW. xvi, 542.
1 1

7
A beginning had been made by the establish- " Cf. Marquardt, St. V. 1, p. 457; Rudorff,
ment of Novum Comum under the Lex Vatinia of Gromatische Institutionen, pp. 229 ff.
59 (cf. Cary, CAN. ix, p. 519 n. 2), but this was Att. xvi, i6e. 15.
1 3

cancelled by the consul M. Marcellus (Suet. Caes, 28). Att. xvi, 16 f. 18.
1 4

8
Rudo\ph,StadtundStaatimrdmischenItalien p. t Fam. xiii, 8. 1 ff., 4. 4.
1 5

236; cf. Stuart Jones, JRS. 1936, p. 271 ;pace Hardy, Cf. Cary, CAH. ix, p. 519 n. 2. But he still
1 6

EHR. xxxi, 1916, pp. 356, 359; Dio XLI, 36. often employed the Illviri, e.g. CIL. x, 3861.
9
Cf. Hardy, EHR. l.c. p. 357; Caland, De Suet. Caes. 28.
1 7
io C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAI US, 49-28 B.C.
1
dictatorship, and became entirely obsolete. Men like Cluvius made the precedent for
similar officials acting directly under the imperium maius o f Brutus and the triumvirs 2

(pp. 34,274)—manifestations o f a return to the Hellenistic practice o f personal KTIOTUCC

(p. 356).* The military ceremony and terminology still accompanying deduction only
serve to emphasise the connection o f these founders w i t h the imperium maius. Indeed,
the deductores themselves usually possessed a subordinate imperium^ although this
cannot be stated w i t h certainty o f the exceptional circumstances o f the dictatorship:
Cluvius certainly did not possess imperium as governor, since C. Vibius Pansa
Caetronianus occupied this position (p. 12).
So far i t has only been shown that Cluvius had a special appointment i n Cisalpine
Gaul, like other single officials elsewhere, i n the year i n which the coin o f Clovius was
issued i n some Western province. Since there is no orthographical difficulty i n their
identification, i t only remains to show that the title P R A E F . is applicable to Cluvius.
Its complete relevance has been obscured by false deductions and a wrong reading.
The title o f a similar commissioner under Brutus, Q. Hortensius (p. 33), hitherto
wrongly restored from an imperfect specimen as legatusf is seen beyond all doubt
from an example i n the British Museum (Pi. I I , 8) to be P R A E F . C O L O N . D E D V .
The analogy w i t h Clovius is complete. The discovery that such officials bore the title
praefectus has been needed to explain the description o f L . Memmius, who settled two
legions, probably i n 42 B.C.,? as PRAEF. legionum XXVI et XXVIIQ) Lucae ad agros
dividundos? The terminology o f Cicero and Servius is not, therefore, inexact when they
say, to L . Plancus and o f Pollio respectively, ei negotio te PRAEFICEREf and agris
PRAEERAT dividundis. 10
Z u m p t , " observing that references by Cicero" point to a
personal commission rather than a potestas, argued from the single title o f Q. Valerius
Orca (disregarding those o f other commissioners) that all such officials were kgatipro
praetore\ using this dubious analogy, Gaebler has found general acceptance for his
13

discovery, on a coin o f Philippi (p. 274), o f a LEG(atus) C(oloniae> -is) D(educendae>

1
Cf. Pais, Memorie della R. Ac. dei Lincei the post of Memmius with the local praefectura hire
(sc.-mor.), vi, 1, 1925, pp. 360 ff. dicundo (see belpw, p. 323). The example which he
2
iussu, arbitratu—e.g. Liber Coloniarum (JFeldm. cites from Venafrum (Jnscr. Reg. Neap. 4627) be-
p. 213); von Premerstein, SavZ. 1922, p. 120. longs to the latter class. It is true that, in the Civil
3
Cf. Skard, Festskrift til Koht, p. 58. Wars, praefecti were appointed for emergencies
4
E.g. Feldm. p. 213; von Premerstein, I.e.; without specific definitions (cf. Cagnat, Rev. arch.
Marquardt, St. V. 1, p. 448. xxvn, 1895, p. 137 n. 69 for a Pompeian official at
5 Cf. Jullian, TP. p. 28; Lauria, Studi Bonfante Curubis): but, legally speaking, a praef.i.d. was a
y

11, p. 489. city-magistrate, and a praef.a.d.a. a military repre-

6
Gaebler, ZfN. xxxvi, 1926, p. 137. sentative of the imperator.
7 Honigmann, PW. xv, 1538; cf. Miltner, ibid. ' An. xvi, 16a. 5. 1 0
AdVerg. Eel. 11, 1.
621; Pais, Museo italiano di antichita classica, I , " Commenta Epigraphica p. 301; cf. Meyer,
y

1885, p. 38. Casars Monarchic, p. 414.

8
CIL. xiv, 2264; cf. Ritterling, PW. xn, 1820 f. Fam. x m , 5. 1, 7. 1, etc
1 8

Jullian, TP. p. 29, unaware of the coins, confuses ZfN. xxxix, 1929, p. 261.
1 3
 THE CAESARIANS II

-is). I t w i l l be shown elsewhere (p. 275) that an unknown colonial coin o f Dyrrhachium
corrects this interpretation to C(ploniam) T)(?duxit\ so that the title legatus is due to
the ordinary circumstances o f a provincial governorship (p. 247). I t is irrelevant to the
land settlements, which were i n the hands o f praefecti.
The ascription o f the coins to such an official is entirely i n accord w i t h the evidence
already cited o f Caesar's administrative methods, and w i t h the frequency o f coinages
celebrating foundations (pp. 147 ff.). I t may be added that the attribution to Cisalpine
1

Gaul agrees both w i t h the evidence o f provenance and w i t h the metallic content o f
the coins, which are composed o f the alloy o f orichalcum (containing zinc instead o f
2

the t i n o f Republican bronze ), o f which a principal constituent, cadmea, was, at this

3

date, chiefly supplied from the agar Bergomatium i n this territory. The cleverness 4

of the metallic innovation lies i n the fact that, although the coins weighed not much
more than half an ounce, invidious comparisons were avoided since the metal had not
been used for money before (p. 88): i t is significant that Clovius, to whom the launch-
ing o f the scheme was entrusted, came o f a great banking family (p. i 8 ) . 5 But the
idea may be referred to Julius himself, under whose dictatorial imperium means this
—the first o f many 'foundation' issues—was made. The choice o f Cisalpine Gaul for
the inauguration o f this custom was no doubt dictated b y its reputation at this time as
6
a land o f promise and the bulwark o f Italy and the State. The coinage was probably
issued at the capital and commercial centre, Mediolanum —where a mint for denarii
7

had possibly already been opened i n 50-49. Clovius, like all the other official moneyers
8

in this alloy before Augustus, namely, M . Acilius, C. Sosius and Q. Oppius, came o f
a family o f wealthy financiers:9 no doubt the coinage was a profitable concern (p. 19).

3. AMISUS
1 0
A n unpublished and apparently unique coin (PL I I , i ) (which may be o f the same
metal") has the inscriptions P. S V L P I C I V S R V F V S (with an o w l facing, standing on
a crab) and P R O PR. (a turreted female head to right). The only known specimen was
found i n Turkey. The appearance o f an exactly similar o w l on fourth-century coins o f
1
The suggestion of Milne, Development of 5 Cic. Fam. xin, 56.1-3; cf. Frank, ES. 1, p. 388.
Roman Coinage, p. 20, that the issue celebrated the Cic. 777 Phil. 13; cf. Syme, RR. p. 79.
6

triumph of Caesar in 46, is based on a parallel attri- Suet. De viris illustribus, De clans gram, et
7

bution (of Q. Oppius) to the triumph of 45: this rhet. 6.

will be shown to be incorrect (see below, p. 62). Cf. Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 391 n. 1.
8

* Bahrfeldt, NZ. xxxvn, 1905, p. 42 analysed. 9 Cic. Fam. xui, 56. 1-3; cf. Frank, ES. 1,
3
Beanlands, NC. 1918, pp. 187 ff. p. 388; Carettoni, Civiltd Romana, ill, 1938, p. 15.
4
Pliny,i\W.xxxiv,2;<£Mattmgly,5ilfC./m/». Istanbul.
1 0

p. xlvii. Caesar did not contravene die mysterious The metal was soon adopted for coinage by the
1 1

veto on mining in Italy (Pliny, NH. HI, 138; xxxni, city of Obulco (Zobel de Zangroniz, MNE. v, 1880,
78; xxxvii, 202; cf. Frank, ES. 1, pp. 263 f.), since p. 137): the style of that coinage suggests a date very
Cisalpine Gaul was still outside its borders. close to that of the present issue.
12 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
1
Amisus, i n the company o f a turreted female head o f the type also found here, suggests
strongly that Sulpicius was governor o f Pontus and Bithynia; this is rendered certain
by his appearance i n that very capacity on an unknown coin o f colonia Sinope (p. 251).
The colony was founded i n 45, i n a month that cannot be established since the era
2

3
apparently followed the Roman calendar. The title o f Sulpicius eliminates the possi-
bility o f a date after 27 B.C. Between these limits there are three gaps i n the Bithynian
Fasti. T w o o f them immediately precede and succeed respectively the governorship o f
4
Ahenobarbus: there is a hiatus from the surrender o f M . Appuleius after Philippi
until 40*—a period partly filled by Antony's personal administration —and another 6

from c. 3 5 to 33 until Actium.7 But the Sinopitan piece o f Sulpicius differs, b y reason o f
its rough fabric and early appearance, from those coins o f the colony which were
struck i n 31 and even as early as 38 ( P i . I X , 4) (p. 253). Moreover, i t w i l l be shown
elsewhere to associate him w i t h the city i n a finite sentence to which the only parallels
are issues commemorating deductiones, and which is to be reconstructed D[eduxit] or
[DE]D(uxit)l(ussu) C(aesaris). Attribution to 45, when the deductio o f Sinope occurred,
is entirely i n accordance not only w i t h the style o f both these unrecorded coins, but
also w i t h the provincial activity o f Sulpicius, o f which the latest known example is his
governorship o f Illyricum i n 47-46.* The year 45 also coincides w i t h a third blank i n
the list o f governors o f Pontus and Bithynia. After extensive controversy, i t appears
likely that C. Vibius Pansa Caetronianus governed the province in 47-46 rather than
9 10

i n 48-47," unless he was there during both periods. His predecessor was probably
12

13 14
either Cn. Domitius Calvinus or M . Coelius M . f. Vinicianus; his immediate suc-
cessor, i n the years 46-45—Pansa was back i n Rome before the end o f 46 5—has not J

16
hitherto been identified.
This official issue, whose types indicate Amisus as its mint, is not followed by a
second Roman coinage o f the province until c. A . D . 14 (p. 145). I t provides a further
1
E.g. Rec. 1, p. 47. 5. Provin\ialverwaltung Casars, Diss. Strassburg, 1912,
2
Kubitschek, NZ. 1908, pp. 68 f., from numis- p. 67; pace Marquardt, St. V. 1, p. 298 n. 6.
matic evidence; cf.Reinach, Rev. arch. 1916, p. 339; 9 Vide Syme, RR. p. 71 n. 4, for his name.
Meyer, Casars Monarchic, p. 492; pace Adcock, 1 0
As Holzl, l.c. pp. 79, 81; Ruge, PW. xvn
CAH. ix, p. 708. (1936), pp. 229, 472; Syme, Anatolian Studies to
3
Kubitschek, l.c. Buckler (1939), p. 322.
4
Appian, BC. iv, 195-7. 1 1
As Borghesi, (Euvres, 11, pp. 347 ff.; Wroth,
J Ibid, v, 63; cf. Ganter, p. 33; Raillard, p. 18; BMC. Pontus, etc., p. xiv; Stella Maranca, Memorie
Craven, University of Missouri Studies (Social della R. Ac. dei Lincei, v, 1926, p. 336.
Science), in, 2, 1920, p. 51. 1 2
Sternkopf, Hermes, XLVH, 1912, p. 330.
6
Josephus, BJ. 1, 242: cf. Ganter (who exag- . Munzer, PW. v, 1422: cf. Dio XLII, 49. 1.
I3

gerates a short stay). 1 4

Munzer, PW. iv, 198 (26); cf. Bell. Alex. 77. 2;
7 Ganter, ibid. (£33 B.C.); cf. Munzer, PW. v, ILS. 883; Cavedoni, Bull, dell* Inst, di corr. arch.
1330; Raillard, p. 18. 1849, P* 5 I 2
47 4 *
t o _ 6

8
Cic. Fam. X I I I ; cf. Holzl, Fasti praetorii, *5 C i c Fam. vi, 12. 5; Pro Lig. 1.7; cf. Syme, l.c.
Diss. Leipzig, 1876, p. 82; Munzer, PW. iv, 849; 1 6
Cf. Sternkopf, l.c.; Q.MarciusCrispus arrived in
Sternkopf, Hermes, XLVII, 1912, p. 329; Letz, Die 45;Levi 1,p. 171 n.2;Syme,l.c;cf.Plutarch,Brut.n).
 THE CAESARIANS 13
example o f Caesar's unrecognised provision o f aes currency for the Empire. The o w l
of Amisus is accompanied by a crab: the implications o f this include sea power, but,
1 1
on coins o f Cassius, A l f o l d i sees i n i t an example o f the profound * Messianic' feeling
of the times, and an expression o f the coming Cosmocrator, who w i l l , according to
3
astrological beliefs, inaugurate the rebirth o f Nature under the sign o f the crab. This
explanation may be equally applicable to the present coin. The immediate occasion for
4
the issue is likely to have been the liberation o f Amisus by Caesar. The contemporary
Sinopitan issue bearing the name o f Sulpicius celebrated a similar promotion—though
to Roman not Greek libertas (p. 402)—and such changes o f status were regularly com-
memorated i n this way, either b y official or b y local coinage (pp. 338 ff.). Sulpicius
probably owed this rare (and often profitable) privilege o f coining aes to kinship by
marriage w i t h the dictator. 5 Like most moneyers o f the period, he was probably a
financier: this is suggested by his election to the censorship i n 41. 6

4. THESSALONICA(?)

Julius Caesar's most important coinage—which has, however, not been attributed
to him—was composed, like that o f Clovius and perhaps that o f Sulpicius, o f the
new alloy o f orichalcumJ I t comprises three values (p. 88). The two largest o f
these have, on the reverse, a fiscus, sella quaestoria* and hasta
8 10
( P i . I I , 3 ) ; the
third has a p r o w " (Pi. I I , 2). A l l three have the letter Q , " and on the obverse
particularly striking portrait-heads to right. O f these there is an exact copy (rather
13
than a prototype), inscribed P R I N C E P S F E L I X , on a coin o f a C O L O N I A
I V L I A whose ethnic, hitherto misread, is A L E . , and whose attribution to a foundation
o f Alexandria Troas i n c. 42-41 B.C. is confirmed b y analogies and provenance
(p. 244).
14
The pieces w i t h Q are assigned by Friedlander to Brutus. But a slight similarity o f
the portrait to him is due merely to contemporary workmanship. Moreover, the titles
PRINCEPS F E L I X , applied to the same portrait on the colonial coins, are singularly
1
BMCR. 11, p. 484. 84. Identified conclusively by Helbig, Abhand-
1 0

2
Rom. Mitt. L, 1935, p. 146. lungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
3
Bouch6-Lec\ercq,L'AstroIogiegrecque, p. 33 n. 1. %u Gottingen, Philol.-hist. KL, N F . x, 3,1908, p. 36;
4
Strabo XII, 547; Dio XLII, 48. pace Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 473. 47, who interprets
5
For his wife, a Julia, see Syme, RR. p. 65. it, for no clear reason, as the virga of a tribunician
6
CIL. 1 , p. 64.
2
viator.
7
Shown by spectrographs test: Spectrogram 12. 1 1
Istanbul. Riggauer, SB. Miinchen, 1897, p.
8
Largest: Berlin, Istanbul; middle denomina- 533.
tion: BM, Berlin, own collection, Cahn sale 60 " Gaebler, l.c. p. 74 for the two largest: Riggauer,
(1928) 1315; Gaebler, NG. 111, 1, p. 74, cf. p. 69. l.c, omits this from his description of the other.
9 Cf. Kiibler, PW. (2R.), 11, 1314, pace Long- 1 3
Misread by Friedlander, BB. 1868, p. 26; Bull.
perier, Recherches sur les insignes de la questure, dell' Inst, di corr. arch. 1870, p. 193, etc.
pp. 9ff.,43ff.(subsellium). BB. 1865, p. 143; cf. Bull, dell* Inst. l.c.
1 4
14 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
unsuitable to Brutus, i n view o f the semi-monarchist ideas already associated w i t h the
title PrincepSy and o f the special connection o f Felicitas w i t h the cult o f Venus and
1

2
w i t h the Julian house. I t may be noted also that Brutus allotted to his provinces, not
3
quaestors, but proquaestors. Finally, i t is unthinkable that Alexandria Troas, a colony
i n the provinces o f Brutus, could flaunt, on coins w i t h his head, the epithet I V L I A .
4
I n view o f such considerations Imhoof-Blumer suggests that the portraits on the
quaestorian and colonial coins represent Augustus; but even Gaebler,* who takes the
same view, must admit that their features (which have much individuality) do not
resemble his i n the slightest. Furthermore, not only does an inspection o f the coins
w i t h Q give the general impressior^that they could hardly be so late as 31 B.C., but this
conclusion is confirmed by a number o f particular considerations. (1) Pieces o f the
6
largest denomination have a curious concave flan found on coins o f Q. Hortensius
(44-42 B.C.) (p. 33), o f Philippi (c. 42-41) (p. 274),? and Thessalonica (41-40). 8

(2) They closely resemble, i n weight, diameter, and bevelled edge, pieces struck at
Thessalonica i n c. 42-41,9 and contemporary issues o f Pella. (3) Another coin o f
10

Thessalonica," o f c. 50-40 B.C., has a similar prow as its type.

A date i n the forties is thus indicated; but Brutus is excluded, and the features could
not be Antony's. N o w i f i t is taken into consideration that these coins w i t h Q are o f
different workmanship from Roman issues, i t w i l l be seen that the portraits on the
specimens illustrated by Gaebler are not unlike those o f Julius on t w o denarii o f
12

Sepullius Macer. Other examples, too, o f the orichalcum issue have respectively the
13 14

beard, and the sharp physiognomy, o f two further denarii o f the same moneyer. * 1

Correspondingly the head as rendered on the colonial pieces o f Alexandria Troas

strongly resembles a fifth o f these denarii. There are minor differences i n each case;
16

but, i n spite o f the distinctive style o f the quaestorian orichalcum coinage, they are no
greater than those which separate even the portraits on the series o f denarii from each
other. W i t h regard to PRINCEPS F E L I X , the inscription o f the colonial issue o f
Alexandria Troas, we may anticipate a later discussion (p. 244) by noting that Julius is
called princeps civitatis by Suetonius. ? Gwosdz and Sprey * interpret the w o r d as 'a
1 18 1

Gwosdz, Der Begriff des romischen 'Princeps*, 9 Gaebler, NG. 11, p. 97.
1

Diss. Breslau, 1933, pp. 29ff.,48 etc. 1 0

Ibid. p. 96. 19.
Berlinger, Zur inoffiiiellen Titulatur der romischen" Ibid. p. 121. 22.
2

Kaiser, Diss. Breslau, 1935, pp. 9 f.; cf. Levi, Rendi-1 1

NG. HI, 1, p. 74. 226, 228.
conti del. R. 1st. lombardo, LXXI, ill, 2, 1938, p. 114.
1 3
BMCR. pi. LIV, 20,19.
3 Cf. Gaebler, ZfN. XXIII, 1902, pp. 184 ff.; 1 4
BM, Berlin.
Biilz, l.c. p. 46, and below, p. 36. BMCR. pi. LIV, 17, 23.
MG. p. 89; cf. Gardthausen 11, 1, p. 70.
4 1 6
Ibid. 16.
5 ZfN. XXIII, 1902, p. 186. *7 Caes. 29.
E.g. Berlins Gaebler, NG. 111, 1, p. 74, no.
6 1 8
L.c. p. 39.
226. *9 De M. Tullii Ciceronis politico doctrina, Diss.
7 ZfN. xxxix, 1929, pi. 1. 14. Amsterdam, 1928; cf. Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis,
Gaebler, NG. 111, 2, pp. 121-4.
8
LXV, 1930, pp. 341 ff.
 THE CAESARIANS 15
princeps , but Cicero calls Pompey LONGEprinceps
9
civitatis, and speaks o f autocrats
1

like Demetrius o f Phaleron as princeps; 2

i t would be difficult to differentiate the re-
ference o f Suetonius from these. Felix too is k n o w n to have been a favourite appellative
3

4
of the dictator. These considerations do not, therefore, invalidate the conclusion that
the portrait is o f Caesar himself.
N o w the three comparisons, which have been cited to indicate a date i n the forties
for the quaestorian issue, serve also to reveal its extensive Macedonian affinities.
Further and conclusive evidence i n this connection is provided by the latest previous
Roman coins o f that province, struck by Aesillas quaestor* and Q . Sura legatus pro
praetoref which have (together w i t h the national Macedonian c l u b instead o f the 7

Roman hasta) a precisely similar type o f fiscus and subsellium. One o f the present
8
quaestorian pieces has been found i n Thrace or Mysia, but another probably i n
0
Greece. I t is true that the colonial issues w i t h PRINCEPS F E L I X are o f Asiatic
10
provenance i n accordance w i t h their ascription to Alexandria Troas. But this does
not at all affect the attribution o f the quaestorian series to Macedonia, since i n the time
of Julius (though, perhaps, not i n the Augustan epoch to which Gaebler attributes
them) no official model existed i n Asia itself to exclude the use o f a prototype from
Macedonia.
I t remains to discover the date and occasion o f the issue. A n exact chronology is
difficult to attain owing to erroneous assumptions which have been made concerning
heads o f the dictator on coins—based on a misinterpretation o f a passage o f D i o :
FIATEPA -re CC0T6V THZ ITATPIAOI §mov6uc«Tccv KCCI is TCC vouiCTUccrcc ivex&poc^ccv. 11

This has been understood to imply that a decree was passed i n 44 permitting his
portraiture on currency." But TTATEPA THZ fTATPlAOI, rather than c o r r o v , must
be the object o f £vex<5cpcc§av, and there is only one possible translation: 'they named
13
him " Father o f his C o u n t r y " and engraved i t on the coinage/ This interpretation is
reinforced b y the presence o f PARENS P A T R I A E on denarii w i t h his portrait. But 14

the modification does not assist precision, since a number e f these denarii are certainly
posthumous ; 5 and D i o , who says vaguely o f the honorary decrees to Julius KCX0' ev
x

ydp et KCCI uf| Tn5cvTa ducc \XT\TS i a r n ^ ^ n WY™ tKupcbOrj AeA£§6Tca, often confuses the
16

periods o f the dictator's worshipfulness i n life, his worship i n death, and tendencious
De Domo sua, 66.
1 1 1
XLIV, 4.
* Fam. xvi, 21. 5. " E.g. by Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xiv; Adcock,
This is the conclusion of Wagenvoort, Philo-
3
CAH. ix, p. 727; Ganter, ZfN. XIX, 1895, p. 183;
logus, xci, 1936, pp. 206 ff.; QAS. x, p. 16. Macdonald, Coin Types, pp. 193 f., etc.
Berlinger, l.c. pp. 9 f.
4 1 3
Thus interpreted by Grueber, BMCR. 1, p. 547
Gaebler, NG. m, 1, p. 69.
5
n. 2. A. S. F. Gow confirms the correctness of this
Ibid. p. 73.
6
translation; cf. also McFayden, p. 20 n. 28.
Ibid. p. 10; cf. ZfN. xxiii, 1902, pp. 184 ff.
7 1 4
Grueber, l.c pp. 549, 552.
Own collection, acquired at Istanbul.
8
*5 Ibid.; cf. Gabrici, Augustus (1938), p. 393 n. 1;
Athens mus.
9
H. Mattingly is of the same opinion.
Cf. Gaebler, ZfN. XXIII, 1902, p. 186.
1 0 1 6
XLIV, 3.
16 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
interpretations o f his policy. Thus, even as evidence for the title parens patriae^ the
1

statement o f Dio is o f little use. O f indication concerning portraiture he gives no sign

2
whatever. Even Ganter, who accepts the misinterpretation, seeks to apply the re-
ference not to 44 but to A p r i l 45, considering that the new quattuorvirate at the mint
was not limited to a yearly tenure. There is no iconographic objection to this, since a
3
numismatic portrait of Julius has already appeared at Bithynian cities under C. Vibius
Pansa Caetronianus, i n 47-46 B.C. (p. 12). Thus 45 is preferable to 44 as a terminus
post quern for the denarii. Since the orichalcum coins which are the subject o f this
discussion copy i n many respects the portraits on these denarii^ i t may be supposed that
they, too, were issued after A p r i l 45.
There is reason to think also that the issue was made before the death o f Caesar
whose portrait i t bears. HelbigS points out that the hasta which occurs here is found
4

elsewhere, i n conjunction w i t h the same form o f sella? on the. coinage o f two officials
of quaestorian rank, who lived within the same transitional epoch when imperatores held
the power. Since the hasta was regularly an emblem o f imperium? and o f these two
officials one—A. Pupius Rufus (p. 69)—was certainly pro praetore, and the other—
8 9
L . Sestius —may well have been also, he rightly deduces that the joint appearance o f
this form o f sella and a hasta denotes a rank o f quaestor (or pro quaestore) pro praetore,
that is, w i t h praetorian imperium. Since, at this time at least, ordinary provincial
10

quaestors did not possess this, i t is necessary to conclude that our present moneyer,
who signs w i t h the letter Q, held some position i n Macedonia exceptionally carrying
w i t h i t an imperium \ he must have been a commander or governor, owing obedience
only to the supreme imperium maius o f his war-lord (p. 33). I t has been shown that
the latter cannot have been Brutus. But i t is i n accordance w i t h the early date o f these
coins that Antony's first governor i n Macedonia-Achaia was a legatus ( Q . Paquius
Rufus [p. 274]), and that, b y the analogy o f other provinces, there is no likelihood o f
subsequent quaestorian governors i n Macedonia." O n the other hand, at least one

Cf. Adcock, CAH. ix, p. 728 n. 3.

1 9
Cf. Helbig, l.c. p. 35. It is highly probable
2
ZfN. xix, 1895, pp. 199 f. that Q. Hortensius, contemporary and governor of
3
Cf. Curtius, Rom. Mitt, XLVII, 1932, p. 230. the whole Balkan region (see below, p. 33), was
4
This is necessary owing to the probability— assisted by officials of praetorian or propraetorian
which Ganter, I.e., fails to consider—that many of rank: P. Spinther, pro q. in Asia at the same date,
the denarii used as models were struck after the was of this standing (cf. Chapot, La province
dictator's death. This is confirmed by H. romaine proconsulate d'Asie, p. 309), and, in Mace-
Mattingly. donia-Achaia itself, Atratinus appears to have held
5 Abh. Gottingen, Ph.-h. KL, NF. x, 3,1908, p. 35. a similar assistant governorship (in Achaia) under
6
Following Longpener, Recherckes sur Us Antony (ILS. 9461; cf. below, p. 382).
insignes de la questure, ll.ee, he inaccurately calls it 1 0
For their status under Augustus, see below,
a subsellium. pp. 136, 140 f.
7 Ibid. p. 37; cf. Klingmuller, PW. vn, 2502; 1 1
Cf. Ganter, Raillard, passim. It should be noted
Fiebiger, ibid. 2506. that the presentissue mustbe attributed to Macedonia
8
BMCR. 11, p. 473. 47 (43-42 B.C). itself, not oudying parts of the large province.
 THE CAESARIANS 17
quaestor pro praetore had governed a major province for Caesar i n his dictatorship,
1
namely his kinsman Sex. Julius Caesar. Moreover, the head o f the dictator on these
coins bears little resemblance to the posthumous conceptions o f Antony's aes (p. 264).
Nor is i t accidental that, on denarii o f Brutus, Victory is seen trampling down and
breaking just such a hasta as appears here: the hasta o f imperium (which is here substi-
2

tuted for the national Macedonian club o f earlier issues) was a suitable symbol, for
Republican propaganda, o f the autocratic regime o f the dictatorship —and o f the 3

regnum which i t threatened to become. Moreover, the extensive preparations at this

4
time for the coming Eastern campaigns (which would hasten this development )
included, as Nicolaus o f Damascus explicitly informs us,5 the dispatch o f an army to
Macedonia—an exceptionally plausible occasion for a military issue o f this unusual
type. I t may, then, be concluded that the dictator himself authorised this coinage.
The quaestor pro praetore who signs i t w i l l , i n this case, have been his representative
and governor i n Macedonia during the last year o f his life. N o doubt he is the army-
6 7
commander mentioned by Nicolaus as MApKOS 'AKIAIOS and by Cicero as Acilius.
He has been identified w i t h Caesar's legatus i n the C i v i l War, Acilius Caninus(?); 8

but coins reveal thepraenomen o f that officer to have been Manius (p. 26), as a number
o f MSS. render it,9 and, i n any case, he cannot have been quaestor pro praetore i n 44 B.C.,
since he was proconsul o f Sicily i n 46-45. Much more appropriate is the M . Acilius
10

who was consul suffectus i n 33 —perhaps the Aviola who miraculously survived when
11

12
seemingly burnt to death. He is likely to be the signatory o f this coinage, and, as
quaestor pro praetore like Sex. Julius Caesar i n a precisely similar appointment, the
1
Munzer, PW. x, 477; cf. Bell. Alex. 66. i ; campaigns. Cf. also Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 494
Livy, Ep. cxiv; Josephus, AJ. xiv, 160. n. 23.
* BMCR. 11, p. 478. 63; cf. Alfoldi, Rom. Mitt. 5 Vita 16 (Hall, Smith College Classical Studies,
1935, p. no. iv, 1923, p. 19).
3
Alfoldi, l . c ; cf. Helbig, l.c. pp. 30 f. The fact As emended by Schwartz, Hermes, xxxm,
6

that another issue of Brutus's government (that of 1898, p. 182 (Codex Escorialensis reads AliifAios).
L. Sestius) does not scruple to give honourable But Hall, l.c. p. 81, points out that his further
place to the hasta is irrelevant, since propaganda is emendation of MAvios for M&pKos is unjustifiable (it
notoriously shortsighted, and the associations of is also unnecessary).
such a symbol could differ in accordance with the Fam. VII, 30. 3, qui in Graeciam cum legionibus
7

aspect to which it was applied. A parallel instance missus est. Cf. Groag, SB. ix, 1939, p. 6.
is provided by the vexillum, which is trampled under E.g. by Hall, l.c.; Klebs, PW. 1, 252 (15).
8

foot in the same manner on one coin of Brutus, but 9 Caesar, Bell. Civ. m, 39. 1.
appears in the usual manner on another (pp. 272 ff.). Holzl, Fastipraetorii, Diss. Leipzig, 1876, p. 87.
1 0

The existence of two such examples merely bears Fasti Venusini (CIL. x, 422).
1 1

witness to a somewhat unimaginative publicity de- Val. Max. 1, 8. 12; cf. Klebs, PW. 1, 253 (19).
partment. Von Rohden's suggested identification of M.
4
Levi, Annali dell' 1st. Superiore di Magistero del Acilius with Acilius Caninus(?) (ibid. 253 [16]) is
Piemonte, VII, 1934, p. 10; id., Athenaeum, 1936, invalidated by the difference of praenomina. M.
p. 210, shows that the consideration of kingship was Acilius Caninus, quaestor urbanus (CIL. xiv, 153),
postponed until the successful conclusion of the was too young at this date to be considered here.
18 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

army-commander and provincial governor. There are no other probable candidates

for the governorship o f Macedonia i n 45-44, or, for that matter, for its provincial
1

2
quaestorship.
I t is reasonable to suppose that this issue, like that o f the dictator's other quaestor,
Cn. Julius, and like all financial enterprises o f the period, was planned and supervised
by the central bureau o f Balbus, to which, no doubt, heavy profits accrued owing to
the false values attached to orichalcum (p. 88). But Acilius himself, like all other
moneyers i n orichalcum before Augustus, came o f a family w i t h large financial interests;
3
indeed, the Balkans were the special sphere o f the A c i l i i , and the calamine needed for
4
the alloy may well be o f Macedonian origin. I t is not surprising that the series, though
as pretentious i n type and range o f denominations as i n metal, is now o f exceptional
rarity: there was little time for the development o f its circulation before the type be-
came unacceptable to the government o f Brutus and Cassius. Moreover, these obtained
possession o f the fisci (including the revenue o f the last administrative year) not only
o f Macedonia, but o f Asia and Syria also,* and were therefore i n a position to suppress
this unsuitably autocratic mintage not only at the source, but at the points to which its
circulation naturally tended to flow. The coins may have been at once melted d o w n ;
more probably they were overstruck by the Republican issues at Thessalonica, which
followed almost immediately (p. 33). Overstrikings o f Macedonian coinage o f this
6
period are b y no means infrequent.
The official Caesarian aes coinage, therefore, is complex i n character. I t can be
classified according to objective, and also from administrative, economic and metal-
lurgical standpoints. As regards objective, the mints i n Spain and Macedonia were
primarily strategic, but Clovius—like many later founders—commemorates the en-
franchisement o f cities, and the issue o f Sulpicius Rufus may have had both reasons
d'Stre. From an administrative point o f view there are t w o groups: the governor o f
Pontus-Bithynia, quaestor o f Farther Spain, and quaestor-governor o f Macedonia
were not inconsistent w i t h Republican traditions, but Clovius (like Hirtius before him)
was an extra-constitutional representative o f the dictator; intermediate is the issue at
Corduba, which appears to combine the signatures o f a quaestor and o f Caesar's
financial secretary Balbus. Sulpicius Rufus possessed the imperium, and possibly
Clovius also, but the rest did not: however, an essential and persistent feature o f the
issues is the ultimate responsibility o f the dictator's imperium maius. Caesar is likely
to have profited heavily from the orichalcum issues, and subsequent moneyers i n this
1
Cf. Letz, Die Provin(ialverwaltung Casars, Cf. Dioscorides, De Materia Medico, v, 74;
4

Diss. Strassburg, 1912, p. 60. R. Syme agrees that von Lippmann, Entstehung und Ausbreitung der
the reasons for assigning to Q. Hortensius a first Alchemie, p. 592; Davies,, Roman Mines in Europe,
tenure of 45~44 are inadequate. p. 227. Copper too was a local product, Davies,
2
Cf. Bulz, De Provinciarum Romanarum Quaes- l.c n. 4.
toribus, Diss. Leipzig, 1893. 5 Cf. Syme, RR. p. 171.
3 CIG. 1793. 6
E.g. Gaebler, NG. 11, p. 96. 19.
 THE CAESARIANS 19
metal are, significantly enough, wealthy magnates (p. 89): i t is therefore interesting to
note that Caesar's coiners, not only i n this alloy but i n bronze also, include some
1
eminent financiers—namely, Hirtius, Balbus, C. Vibius Pansa, and probably Q.
Sulpicius Rufus also. I t is difficult to resist the conclusion that coinage i n bronze at a
standard below the ounce was also not unprofitable to those privileged to provide i t ,
although the percentages were perhaps not so high as those derived from the dictator's
own perquisite, orichalcum.
1
The last-named collaborates with cities for coinage: see below, p. 396.
20 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B . C .

B. T H E P O M P E I A N S

1. UTICA(?)

The coinage o f the dictatorship, like the forces o f the dictator, did not hold the field
alone: the regular magistrates o f the Republic still functioned where they might, and
at least survived the death o f their principal enemy. Their earliest bronze issue, w i t h a
1 2
female head to right, and a male head to r i g h t or left, has fallen into oblivion after a
3
single and entirely inaccurate description b y Muller, w h o reads its legends as f o l l o w s :
C. A L . P O M P . M . F. V I C . Q . A . F . C. K A R . — M . M . . A . The ethnic leads h i m
4
to assign the series to Carthage, and Kubitschek is r i g h t l y astonished b y i t . But the
true obverse reading is as follows:

A . P O M P . M . F . V I C . Q . A . F . C. E X E R C . ( P i . I I , 4)

and the reverse legend is merely an inversion o f this—obviously the w o r k o f an illiterate

w h o was presented w i t h an obverse die and told to produce a coin ( P i . I I , 4, 5 ) . 5

F. C. is found very commonly on inscriptions for faciundum curavit. 6

Q . A . is so
frequent an abbreviation for Q(uaestor ad) A(erarium) or A(erarii) 7
or A(raze) that no

Berlin, Copenhagen.
1
tion a ligature here: but thefirstcharacter is certainly
2
Berlin, Paris (*uncertain* and too worn to composite. Nor does it include a K. There is only
supply assistance). one stroke to the right from the centre of the main
3
SuppL p. 55. 230 a-c. 4
Imp. p. 147 n. 211. vertical line, and that is not only at right angles to it,
5 The three necessary corrections are these: but continued through to the left. Thus the basis is
(1) A Berlin example (PL II, 4) on which the male a cross: but at right angles to the vertical below the
head faces left shows clearly that the reverse legend, horizontal are two further horizontal lines, extend-
if inverted, reads APOMPMI* • • The execu- ing to the right only (Monogram 1). The mono-
tion on this side is much inferior to the obverse, gram could conceivably include an I and T , but the
whose inscription has merely been reproduced on horizontal stroke is so low as to make this combina-
the reverse die, where it appears from right to left; tion very improbable. There only remains the possi-
the O has been somewhat mangled by the barbarian bility of an X , with which an E is certainly conjoined.
die-cutter. (2) The engraver of the reverse has in- The next letter is a P with distinct indications of a
serted a palm-branch round part of the edge, so that down-stroke to right: that is, an R. It has been
the inscription can clearly be seen to commence with shown that a C follows at the end. The interpreta-
the A which Muller places second. Neither on the tion seems to be X E R C or E X R C . But there is no
reverse of this piece, nor on any of the obverses— reason why the E of the ligature should not be re-
all of which are legible at this point—is there any peated, like A in other numismatic monograms (e.g.
sign of the ligatured L imagined by Muller. Thus below, p. 394). Its repetition gives us E X E R C .
the name is A. POMP. M. F. V I C , and the C is not 6
E.g. coins (Muller 11, pp. 159ff.,364, 365) and
the first, but the last, letter of the inscription. many inscriptions.
(3) The better of the Berlin specimens shows that 7 E.g. Ephemeris Epigraphica, ill, p. 322; CIL.
the ethnic K A R is the product of too powerful an v, 6428; xi, 3009, 3215, 4389; ix, 4198; x, 5920;
imagination. In the first place, there are only two xiv, 298; cf. Mantey, De gradu et statu quaes torum
separate characters, not three. Muller does not men- etc., Diss. Halle, 1882, pp. 32 ff.
 THE POMPEIANS 21
alternative can be considered. N o w i n the place o f an ethnic is E X E R C , which can
represent the name o f no known city, and appears to exclude all restorations but that
o f E X E R C I T V S i n one o f its cases. The present interpretation can be supported by
no analogy, but the coins too are without a parallel; and the monogram appears to
admit no alternative explanation. Muller has rightly seen that the fabric and style o f
these pieces is African. The lettering is particularly comparable to coins o f Octavian
attributed elsewhere to colonia Thapsus (p. 225), and i t would be difficult to assign the
series outside the Provincia Vetus.
The female heads are clearly not far from contemporary w i t h very similar ones at
municipium Simitthu, which w i l l be attributed to 44 B.C. (p. 178). Moreover, one speci-
1
men o f the present issue shows a bust o f a general design found on a colonial series
of Celsa—also o f c. 44 (p. 211). There can be little doubt, then, that the issue was made
as early as the forties. The mention of the Roman exercitus makes i t most unlikely that
A . Pomponius M.f. Victor—for African epigraphic analogies justify this restoration o f
his name*—is a colonial or municipal quaestor aerarii or ad aerarium. Besides, the
earliest known appearance o f these officials i n a colonial or municipal constitution is
late Augustan (p. 270)—much too late for the fabric o f these pieces. But the office had
already existed at an earlier date i n the government o f Rome itself: until 45 B.C.3 the
director o f the Roman treasury was known as quaestor ad aerarium.* When Julius
conquered Italy at the beginning o f 49 B.C., the majority o f senators and officials pre-
ferred to leave for Pompeian territory, and these, headed b y the consuls, one o f whom
had first rifled the treasury,* were made the nucleus o f a Republican administration at
6
the headquarters i n Epirus. After Pharsalus this was transferred to Africa, which had
been secured for the Republic i n the previous year 7 and was not lost to i t until the
battle o f Thapsus (Feb. 46). The Pompeian administrative capital and military head-
8
quarters were combined at Utica, and i t is here that the present issue is most likely to
have been struck. I n any other situation but this i t would be very difficult to explain
the presence i n Africa o f the signatory o f these coins: but the wandering aerarium o f
the Pompeian rigime, which claimed to be the Roman government, was naturally i n
the hands o f a regular quaestor ad aerarium, who may or may not, under the special
circumstances, have been reappointed annually w i t h the consuls. A n exactly similar
official is later found i n the camp o f Sextus (p. 24). Thus was bronze currency provided
for the large Pompeian forces i n Africa, i n c. 48-46 B.C., by the head o f the Roman
Republican treasury.

1
Copenhagen. (Bruns, Pontes Juris romani" 8), Lex Cornelia de XX
1

2
E.g. Recueil de la Soc. arch, du dip. de Con- quaestoribus 1. io(ibid. 12), LexAgraria 46(ibid. 11).
stontine, xxix, 1894-5, p. 635, Pomponia L.f. 5 Cf. Caesar, Bell. Civ. 1, 14. 1; Fabre, Revue
Victorina; ibid, xxvm, 1893-4, p. 176, Pomponia des itudes anciennes, XXXIH, 1931, p. 26.
Victoria—probably from families freed by him. Cf. Adcock, CAH. ix, pp. 641 f.
6

3
Dio XLIII, 48. 3. 7 Ibid. pp. 653, 681 ff.
4
Polybius xxiii, 14. 5; cf. Tabula Bantina 24 Ibid. p. 684.
8
22 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

2. CORDUBA(?)

I n 46 B.C. the Republic had to retire to yet another line o f defences, i n Spain. There
M . Minatius Sabinus pro quaestore struck denarii for the younger Cnaeus Pompeius,
1
describing h i m as C N . M A G N V S I M P . and C N . M A G N V S I M P . F . There is also
an as o f traditional t y p e and heavy w e i g h t (probably issued at Corduba) bearing
2 3

the former o f these titles. But Sextus, probably after Munda, coined asses—principally
found i n Spain though o f extensive circulation*—both through a legatus M . Eppius
4

6
M.f. as M A G N V S PIVS I M P . F.,7 and without an additional signature as M A G N V S
8
PIVS I M P . Since, therefore, I M P . F . certainly remained i n use i n the Pompeian
titulature after the introduction o f plain I M P . , BorghesiV interpretation lMP(erator)
F(r7*W)—from the analogy o f L . P R O C I L I . F., MESSAL. F., C. C V R . F., R E G V L V S
F.—is more probable than Visconti's lMP(eratoris) F(ilius). 10
I t is not merely Cn.
Magnus filius, imperator, that Cnaeus calls himself, but Cm Magnus, Imperator filius.
I n the same way, since their father was not called Pius, the F . on Sextos's coin also
must be limited to I M P . : his title is Magnus Pius, Imperator filius. Both o f them are
seen to have viewed the title Imperator, not as an ordinary personal distinction, but as
the title to a special hereditary imperium (p. 409). The usage was, for Sextus, the prelude
to an assumption o f the titulature I M P . SEX. M A G N V S , 1 1
which appears on denarii

Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1897, p. 47.

1
7 BMCR. 11, p. 373.104 ff.
Cf. Laffranchi, Bollettino del Circolo Num-
2 8
Ibid. p. 371. 95 ff.
ismatico Napolitano, 1917, pp. 21 ff. 9 (Euvres, I , p. 158.
Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1909, p. 67.
3 1 0
Iconografia romana, pi. V , 7. F(ecit) is im-
Cf. Mommsen, Annali dell' Inst, di corr. possible, since the Pompeii were not their own
4

arch. 1863, p. 74, and del Rivero, Madrid Cat. moneyers.

p. 93. 1 1
This reading is demanded by the following
5 E.g. found at Pompeii (della Corte, Not, d. considerations. Two of the coins bear the head of
Scavi, 1929, p. 379), Nijmegen (mus.), Nimes. Cnaeus sen. inscribed SEX. MAGN.—IMP. SAL.
Attribution of the issues to Nimes by Goudard (PIETAS on reverse) (Laffranchi, R.it. 1912,
(Monographie des monnaies frappies a Nimes, p. 36) p. 511. 2), and SEX. MAG.^-PIVS IMP. SAL.
is based merely on the discovery of a few coins there (ibid. 3)—with legends reading outwards and up-
(as in countless other places) and on a double- wards from low right. The third (ibid. 1) has a re-
bevelled edge (found at this period on issues from markable head that must be a portrait (cf. Hill,
all regions). For these feeble reasons he calls them p. 87 n. 53), but is not of Cnaeus sen.: it must
represent Sextus himself. On the first two coins
un produit incontestable de Vatelier. The wide circula-
tion corrects the assumption of Milne, Development the legend begins from low right, and the ethnic
of Roman Coinage, p. 21, that these pieces did not SAL. comes at the end: if both these reasonable
find acceptance outside Sextus' own provinces. conditions are applied to the third piece, its legend
6
He also countermarks a denarius (Bordeaux). becomes IMP. SEX. MAGNVS SAL. Morelli's
Served under Metelius Scipio; later pardoned restoration S E X . MAGN. SAL. [PIVS] IMP.
by Caesar, Munzer, PW. vi, 259. Like so many (Familiarum Romanarum Numismata, s.v. Pompeia
moneyers of military aes at this period, the Eppii 2, vi) is wrong.
were eminentfinanciers;cf. Hatzfeld, p. 128.
 THE POMPEIANS 23
struck at Urbs Imperatoria Salacia late i n 44.* Cnaeus the younger appears to have
1

3
taken the title on his arrival i n Spain, but i t is not clear whether his brother did like-
wise or waited until his successes i n 44.5 The new praenomen o f the latter, Magnus—
4

inspired b y Octavian's precedent (p. 415)—shows clearly that his aims were directed
towards a greater principatus than his father's rather than to the Republican tradition
6

that was professed b y his party. O n the as w i t h M A G N V S PIVS I M P . the loan o f

7
the features o f Pompey himself to the customary head o f Janus shows an apt com-
promise between the ambitions o f some, and the ideals o f others, o f the supporters
o f Sextus. Pietas was the slogan o f the Pompeians at Munda: the incorporation o f
8

0
PIVS i n his name b y Sextus expresses dutifulness to the Manes o f the Cnaei —
10
including revenge.
Burns" wrongly describes these bronze asses 17,
as 'copper'. I t cannot be deter-
mined whether Grueber is right i n considering their metal to be the Corduban aes
13

1
BMCR. 11, pp. 370 f. The generally accepted (cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 67), and Salacia
interpretation SAL {dubia) (Laffranchi, R.it. 1912, was Neptune's wife (cf. Witte, PW. [2R.] 11,
p. 5 U ; cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 4 n. 1) is un- 1818). A Latin foundation of Salacia is (indepen-
acceptable, since, although after Munda Sextus took dendy) attributed to Sextus by Wallrafen, Die Ein-
refuge among the northern tribe of the Lacetani richtung und kommunale Entwicklung der romischen
(Dio XLV, 10), he did not begin to win cities over Proving Lusitanien, p. 38 n. 4; cf. van Nostrand,
until his arrival in the provincia ulterior (ibid.; cf. UCPH. iv, 2,1916, p. 101. Sestini's coin with C O L .
Appian, BC. iv, 83;Blok, Sextus Pompeius Magnus (Fontana, Sp. p. 16) cannot now be checked. The
Gnaei Films, Diss. Leyden, 1879, P* )> when he issues may well have commemorated the constitutio
xo

beat Carrinas (App. l.c.) and—pace the Augustan of the Latin city, since many mintages can be attri-
tradition in Velleius (11,73. 2) (on whose unfairness buted to similar occasions (pp. 335 ff.).
vide Scott, Memoirs of the American Academy in * Dated by Ulrich, Pietas (pius) als politischer
Rome, x i , 1933, pp. 8ff.)—Pollio, until finally Begriff, Diss. Breslau, 1930, p. 12: Pietas holds an
•TrdvTa 6Myov T6L TCCOTIJ KOCT&JXE (Dio, L a ) . The olive-branch marking the agreement reached by the
denarii must, then, have been issued in Farther mediation of Lepidus. For Sextus's claims at this
Spain: about forty miles south-east of Olisipo lies time see below, p. 409.
the Latin city Salacia, which was striking pieces 3 Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 371. 4
Ibid.
about now with the head of Neptune and IMP. 5 As Hadas, Sextus Pompey, p. 58.
SALAC. (Madrid: Vives m, p. 26.11; cf. Archeologo 6
Cf. Gwosdz, Der Begriffdes romischen Princeps,
Portugues, xvi, 1911, p. 103) and IMP. SAL. Diss. Breslau, 1933, p. 48.
(Vives, l.c. 9. Provenance—20 at Alcacer do Sal 7 Not Sextus's own, cf. Bahrfeldt, Lc.
mus.,.Leite de Vasconcellos, Arquivos da Universi- 8
Appian, BC. 11,430; cf. Syme, RR. p. 157. For
dade de Lisboa, ix [1923], p. 215. 20; also at Lisbon Pietas vide Ulrich, L c ; Meister, Heidelberger Uni-
[Academia das Sciencias], ibid. p. 189). Pliny (NH.versitatsreden, xi, 1930, pp. 6 ff.
iv, 116) announces that it was called Urbs Impera- 9 Roscher, Lexicon der Mythologie, in, 1645.
toria: this unexplained and unparalleled cognomen 1 0
Drumann, Grundriss der Kulturgeschichte, in,
cannot have anything to do with the foundations pp. 567 f.
of Julius or Augustus (called lulia, Augusta), but is 1 1
Money and Monetary Policy in Ancient Times,
very relevant to the peculiar Pompeian adaptation p. 302 n. 1.
of the tide Imperator. Moreover, Neptune, who " Analysed NZ. 1909, pp. 67 ff.
appears on the coins, was Sextus's tutelary deity 1 3
BMCR. 11, p. 368.
24 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
Marianum (p. 7 ) : but Corduba is a probable choice o f mint for these central issues,
1

which would thus immediately succeed the Caesarian issue o f Cn. Julius quaestor.
A similarity i n metal confirms this attribution.

3-5. URSO, MYRTILIS, BAELO

Further insight into the Pompeian cause can be obtained by an investigation o f

L . A P . D E C . Q., whose name is found on the coins o f three other cities i n Hispania
Ulterior—accompanying the ethnics V R S O N E , M V R T p L . ] , and B A I L O . A t Urso
2
(Pi. I I , 6) i t appears on three denominations, w i t h different diademed heads, weighing
c. 512,3 . 303 and c. 286-147*55 grains respectively. Since Colonia Genetiva Iulia
c
4

Vrbanorum, founded i n c. 44, was a settlement o f Romans including all, or nearly all,
6

the territory o f Urso,? i t is inconceivable that after that date the native community
could have continued to have a nominal existence sufficient to justify the appearance
of its name (rather than that o f the colony) on coinage; even peregrine constitutions
which survived combination w i t h a colony were never favoured to this extent (p. 404).
C. 44, then, is a terminus ante quern for the ethnic V R S O N E . O n some coins an F
seems to appear after L . A P . D E C . Q . : since there can be no question o f Quintifilius
8

following the cognomen, F(ecit)—as regularly on pottery?—must be supplied. A t

10 1 2
Myrtilis we find [L.] A P . D E . , L . A . D E C , " L . A . D . ; at Baelo—with the name o f a
1 14
local aedile F A T . * — L . A P . Q . There are records o f Appuleii Deciani o f the first
1
century B.C., * with large commercial interests from which the present official, like the
16
preceding moneyer M . Eppius, may well have derived monetary experience. From
the correspondence o f these three issues there can be no doubt that he was a Roman,
J
not a local, official; he must have been a Roman quaestor i n Farther Spain.
1
I t is therefore astonishing to meet the inscription L . A P . D E C . Q., ? and sometimes
18 1
A P . , APVL., ? on a series o f coins which must inevitably be attributed to the mint o f
1
Pliny, NH. xxxiv, 4, says that this 'imitates Madrid (del Rivero, Cat. p. 65).
1 2

the goodness of orichalcum' (cf. below, p. 87); but For the male name Fata, vide Arch.-epigr. Mitt.
1 3

it was apparently a variety of bronze: cf. Davies, xvi, p. 42; for Fato, vide Schulze, p. 36. Both are
Roman Mines in Europe, p. 114. Celtic.
* Heiss, p. 319. 5, wrongly says one is laureate, Vives, l.c. p. 45. 3. L A P O : Delgado 1, 40
1 4

and represents Octavian. (Madrid; del Rivero, Cat. p. 9). L . AP.: BM cast
3
BM, Milan, Cat. 144-5 5 cf- Vives 111, p. 97. S PW. xi, 259 £ For the family vide Syme,
l

4
BM, Madrid. Anatolian Studies to Buckler, 1939. Htibner's sug-
5
BM. gestion *Decimus' {MLI. p. 1L5) is less likely.
6
Cf. Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, p. 10; Cic. Pro Flacco 70; cf. Frank, ES. 1, p. 392;
1 6

Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, m, p. 322 n., Hatzfeld, p. 120.

pace Zumpt, Commenta Epigraphica, pp.. 317 f. Bahrfeldt, RS. xn, 1904, p. 363. 18 (Coll.
7 Cf. Hardy, l.c. p. 7; Frank, ES. 1, p. 317. Seripopoli, Trapani).
8
BM (2); cf. Vives m, p. 97. Ibid. 19a, 19^; cf. Landolina-Paterno, Ricerche
1 8

9 Oswald, Index of Potters' Stamps, passim. numismatiche sull' antica Sicilia, pp. 13-14.
1 0
Vives in, p. 91 ;cf. Heiss, p. 415,1 ;BM, Madrid. 9 Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 362, 17a, 17b; cf. Garrucci,
X

" Vives, I.e.; cf. Heiss, l.c. 2; BM. Le monete dell' Italia antica, p. 137, 459^.
 THE POMPEIANS 25
Lilybaeum, on whose local issues both their types—Apollo head and lyre—occur w i t h
precisely similar execution (p. 26). Baetica and Sicily never belonged to the same
1

administrative unit, and there is no parallel for a second quaestorship i n a different

province. But i n the last years o f the Republic there was one occasion, and one only, to
which the peculiar situation o f L . Appuleius Decianus applies exacdy. When Sextus
Pompeius evacuated Baetica he was appointed praefectus classis by the senate; but, pro-
scribed on 28 November 43, he sailed to Sicily, where he took Lilybaeum and gradually
the rest of the island. The fact that he struck there coins w i t h H I S P A N O R V M (p. 29)
2

confirms the probability that he relied on supporters who had accompanied him from
Spain; and since, outlawed by the triumvirate, he could derive no supply of administrative
officials from Rdme, it was entirely natural that men whom he or his brother had appointed
to quaestorships in Baetica should serve him in the same capacity i n Sicily. I n particular,
A . Pomp. Victor has provided an example of a similar coinage by a Pompeian quaestor ad
aerarium. One o f his successors was probably this L . Appuleius Decianus. I t is not
improbable that the extent of his coinage is pardy due to a desire b y Sextus to show that
3
Octavian's kinsmen—among whom the Appuleii were —were not all supporters o f the
triumvirate: a similar cause seems to prompt coinage for T . Octavius as proconsul for
Antony (p. 373).
I t is through this official, then, that Sextus issues aes at Lilybaeum, and earlier at
three Baetican towns. I n confirmation i t may be added that Urso was noteworthy as
his loyallest supporter. Although Ablative ethnics occur elsewhere (p. 224), i t may be
4

significant o f the undoubtedly official character o f his coinage that the earliest coins o f
6
this city have VRSO,* while these (and a few unsigned ) have V R S O N E . This may
be a purely Local Ablative: i t is possible, therefore, that C O R D V B A on the official
issue o f Cn. Julius quaestor is an Ablative also.
L . Appuleius's choice o f Spanish mints is interesting. The analogy o f Roman
officials' names at Vesci, Brutobriga and Antipolis within the next four years (pp. 379 ff.),
and o f Sextus's o w n issues at Salacia early i n 44, makes i t highly probable that the
present group too commemorates the conferment o f Latinitas or even Roman status.
I t is significant that the Caesarians found i t desirable to eradicate completely the town
of Urso i n the same year; nor is the assumption that Baelo survived to obtain full civitas
8 0 10
under Claudius? justified. Myrtilis too was refounded as a Roman or Latin t o w n .
The form o f the ethnic V R S O N E , and the lack o f parallels for such signed issues
among the Roman and Latin foundation-series, make i t preferable to consider these
coins official rather than local.
1
Cf. Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 362. 8
Momigliano, The Emperor Claudius and his
2
Appian, BC. iv, 84; cf. Blok, l.c. p. 14. Achievement, pp. 64 f.; Sutherland, RIS. p. 176.
3
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 289. 9 Schulten, PW. xvi, 1151, suggests that it was
4
Cf. Meyer, Casars Monarchic, p. 485. one of the Julian municipia. For drafts of setders
5
Heiss, p. 319. 6
Ibid. at these see below, p. 155.
7
As Hiibner, PW. 11, 2759; Albertini, Les divi- 1 0
As van Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916, p. 101;
sions administrates de VEspagne romaine, pp. 61 f. Hiibner, La Arqueologia de Espana,p. 178.
26 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.

6. LlLYBAEUM

I t is now necessary to return to the mint at which L . Appuleius Decianus issued

coinage i n c. 43-42 as quaestor o f Western Sicily—Lilybaeum, its administrative
capital. Although Bahrfeldt never attempted the task, its asses and semisses are easily
1 2

distinguishable from those o f Agrigentum (p. 28) and Panormus.3 The latter often bear
4
a mint-mark and the local types o f Jupiter and warrior, while at Lilybaeum reverse-
types o f lyre and wreath are linked b y characteristic heads o f Apollo:5 the lyre is the
6
city-type, and a specimen w i t h wreath has the mint-mark AI A . Besides L . A P . D E C .
8 0 10
Q. (AP., A P V L . ) , the moneyers here are M A N . A C I L I . Q.,7 N A S O , Q. F A B . , P O R . ,
Q. A N N I . " ( A N . * ) , CRASSIPES 3 (variously abbreviated) (Pi. 1,2) and Q. B . ( P l . 1 , 3 ) .
1 x I4

These fall into t w o sharply defined groups. The quaestorship o f M \ Acilius

Caninus(?) was not later than the early fifties, since he was proconsul o f Sicily i n
46-45. * Q . Fabius w i l l be o f similar date, whether he is the Maximus who was consul
x

suffectus i n 45 or the Vergilianus w h o was legatus i n 51. ? P O R . too, i f he was M . Cato,

16 1

was quaestor not long after 60, and i t is as quaestor that all these officials coined.
18 10

1
Holm in, p. 75; cf. pseudo-Ascon. (ed. Orelli), cf. his pi. I l l , 53), Berlin and Palermo (Fraccia,
p. 100; Halgan, Essai sur Vadministration aesAntiche monete siciliane, p. 32.122). Since the issues
provinces sinatoriales, p. 232. are entirely uniform and the period was one of
* Av. c. 100 grains—occasionally heavier. peace, it is probable that the other officials were also
3
A few quadrantes are border-line cases. quaestors—who were the senior magistrates at
4
Cf. Bahrfeldt, RS. xn, 1904, p. 385 n. 1. Lilybaeum. This conclusion is confirmed by the
5
Ibid. pp. 362. 17a, 366. 22a (wreath); pp. 364. probable identity of L. ME. (Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 392.45
19J, 371. 26 (lyre). [BM]) and L. C A E C . (Gabrici, p. 159.200 [Palermo])
6
Ibid. p. 346. 4 (Berlin). Vide Monogram 12; with L . Caecilius Metellus, who was quaestor of
Bahrfeldt rightly accepts Garrucci's interpretation of Sicily before his tribunate of 49 (Mommsen, CIL.
this. x, 7258; cf. Munzer, PW. 111, 75). Furthermore,
7 Bahrfeldt, l.c p. 346. 5 (Palermo, Gabrici, C A T . Q. reveals a quaestorship of M. Porcius Cato
p. 156. 140). in Sicily before his governorship of the same pro-
8
Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 354. 12 (BM). vince in 49-48 (Holzl, l.c p. 93): exacdy parallel is
9 Gabrici, p. 156. 133 (Palermo). the case of MAN. ACILI. Q., since M\ Acilius
1 0
Ibid. p. 344. 1 {BMC. p. 124. 29). Interpreta- governed Sicily in 46-45 (see n. 15). This evidence
tion as POR(tttf) (Poole, ibid.) is quite out of keep- that men were sent as governors to the province of
ing with the series. A Hellenised P is used: vide which they had gained experience as quaestor suggests
Monogram 2. that A. POM. also (Bahrfeldt, l.c p. 399.50 [Gotha])
" Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 353. 10 (BM). indicates a quaestorship of the A. Pompeius Bithyn-
" Ibid. 11 (Colmar). icus who governed Sicily in 44-43/2 (Klein, Die
1 3
Ibid. p. 368. 24 (BM). romischen Verwaltungsbeamten, pp. 85 ff., Cichorius,
1 4
Ibid. p. 365. 20 (BM). Romische Studien, p. 245, Sternkopf, Hermes, XLVII,
x
5 Holzl, Fastipraetoriiy Diss. Leipzig, 1876, p. 87. 1912, p. 328), and that either L. POS. (Bahrfeldt, l.c
1 6
Ibid. p. 66. *7 Munzer, PW. vi, 1872 (154). p. 399. 51 [Capitoline]) or S. POS. (ibid. p. 400. 52
1 8
Holzl, l.c. p. 93. [Berlin, Palermo] =S.P. [Berlin]) recalls the quaes-
1 0
C A T . Q., not C A T O , undoubtedly appears on torship of the Postumius who was appointed, but
Panormitan coins at Paris (Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 397; not sent, as proconsul in 49 (Cic An. vn, 15. 2).
 THE POMPEIANS 27
Naso's tenure w i l l be only a few years later i f he is the P. Naso who was praetor i n 44. 1

2
Moreover, C A T . Q., N A S O and Q. F A B . all coined also at Panormus, and the other
issues o f that mint confirm c. 50 as its closing date. I t seems that Julius suppressed this
3

long-standing Republican institution.

4
O n the other hand, Q. B. (to whose issue that o f Crassipes is markedly similar)
uses an individual form o f B which is only found elsewhere on Antony's 'Fleet'
currency of 37 B.C. (p. 43),* and, on the principle o f the lesser copying the greater,
must have been imitated from i t . Since Caesar appears to have put an end to the
coinage at Lilybaeum (as at Panormus) o f the quaestors, who presumably supported
Pompey the Great, i t is highly significant that, when the mint at Lilybaeum reopens,
L . A p . Dec. falls at the beginning, and Q. B. at the end, o f Sextus Pompeius's ad-
ministration o f the island i n 43-36 B.C. They, Furius Crassipes, who may have been
a friend o f Cicero's, and (as a later coinage w i l l suggest [p. 29]) probably Q.
6

7
Annius—perhaps the son o f a Catilinarian o f the same name —represent a revival o f
8
the Republican coinage under Sextus, which terminated at his loss o f Lilybaeum and
his fall. Possibly all are quaestors, but the exigencies o f the period may well have
0
caused deviations from this rule. The choice o f mint is interesting, since Lilybaeum,
like other Sicilian cities, was enfranchised just before or during Sextus's occupation
(p. 189).
1
Holzl, l.c p. 98; cf. Ribbeck, Senatores Romani, of a monogrammed mint-mark. Some of the mono-
Diss. Berlin, 1899, p. 23, no. 92. grammed issues seem to be of later fabric than the
2
Bahrfeldt, l.c. pp. 397, 392, 393 respectively. other group, since their flans are better but their
3
Besides suggestions made on p. 26 it is possible execution less careful: however, a study of the styles
to make conjectural identifications of Q. MALL makes it most probable that the two categories over-
(Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 387 [Berlin]), P. A T . (Torremuzza, lap in date. Coins with the head of Janus, signed
Siciliae populorum et urbium, regum quoque et tyran- P. T E . (Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 378. 39 [BM]) and T R I .
norum veteres nummi, pi. L X I , 2; cf. Holm, in, p. 731.(ibid. p. 381. 41 [BM]), appear to precede the two
773), M. MAR. (ll.cc. pi. L X I , 11; p. 773. 785), main series, which include at least eight names on
M. AVR. (ll.cc. pi. L X I , 4; p. 732. 775), P. RV. the monogrammed pieces, andfifteen(?) on the rest.
(Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 400. 53 [Naples, Palermo = Lenormant, La monnaie dans Vantiquiti, 11, p. 280,
Gabrici, p. 158. 218]) to the quaestorships of Q. righdy sees that these groups precede the coinage
Poblicius, praetor in 69 (Cic. Pro Cluentia, 45; cf. here attributed to Lilybaeum.
Smith, Diet. Biogr. and Mythol. in, p. 600 [7]), * Cf. Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 368. 5 Ibid. p. 365.
Atilius the friend of Brutus (Cichorius, Romische 6
Cic.^«.ix, n.3;cf.Bahrfeldt,l.c.;Stein,P^ . r

Studien, p. 245), M. Marcellus consul in 51 (Holzl, VII, 352 (54). No later member of the family is
l.c p. 69), M. Cotta pro praetore in Sardinia in 49 recorded.
(ibid. p. 66), and P. Rutilius Lupus praetor in 49 7
Cf. Klebs, PW. 1, 2263.
(ibid. p. 76: Munzer, PW. [2R.] 1, 1230 prefers 8
Cf. Levi 11, p. 83.
attribution to a Rupilius) respectively. The issues Q
Coins also reveal several of his legati who coin
can be divided according to the presence or absence (see below, pp. 30 ff.).
28 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

7. AGRIGENTUM

Bahrfeldt, who did not distinguish between the official issues o f Panormus and L i l y b -
aeum, failed also to discern several issues o f a third mint. M \ Acilius Caninus(?),
1
who has been met w i t h at Lilybaeum, issued other coins w i t h three distinctive types
all o f which are found on the local series o f Agrigentum, to which this issue must be
ascribed. Early style and the analogy o f his signature at Lilybaeum indicate attribution
2
to his quaestorship, which occurred i n the early fifties.
But i t appears that the official mint at Agrigentum also operated at a later date.
A small piece with a Pharos as obverse-type, whose date could scarcely be much earlier
than municipal coins under Sextos's administration (e.g. Pi. 1,6 [p. 191]), bears on the
4 5
reverse the signature L . CN.3 and a ligature (wrongly reproduced by Torremuzza
and Bahrfeldt ) which must represent the letters A r P (Pi. 1,5). This is best interpreted
6

as the semi-Romanised mint-mark? o f the city—oppidum Agragas, quod Agrigentum

nostri dixere? This conclusion is confirmed by the execution and fabric o f the present
piece, which show no kinship w i t h the Panormus and Lilybaeum groups.* The
moneyer is most likely to be a member o f the rare gens Cnoria. Very close to this 10

issue i n style are others w i t h the signatures L . M . (Pi. I , 6 ) and C. A L I O B A L A ,

11 1 2

whose mint can scarcely be different. The cognomen o f the latter suggests oriental
13 14
o r i g i n , which the presence o f A l l i i i n business circles at Delos makes probable.
Another group o f quadrantes^ w i t h the type o f a club, is akin to these issues and
may be ascribed w i t h probability (though not w i t h certainty) to the same mint: the
style is not that o f Panormus or Lilybaeum, but the names o f West Sicilian officials
16
occur. Among them are Q. F A B . , who coined at both those mints i n the fifties, and
1
Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 348. complementary part of the same series. There are
An attribution to his proconsulship by Capra- several examples of two mints co-operating to pro-
2

nesi, Bull, dell' Inst, di corr. arch. 1834, p. 74 (cf. vide different denominations, e.g. Rome and
1835, p. 43), is based on a misreading of a coin of Paestum; cf. also the Eastern official groups of
Tingis (p. 177). Augustus (see below, pp. 98 ff.).
3
Berlin, Palermo (Gabrici, p. 156. 128). 1 0
Cf. Schulze, p. 182. Collart, Philippes, p. 262,
4
Monogram 3. wrongly reads publice Gnatio for public. Egnatio on
5 L.c. pi. L X , 20; cf. p. 59. an unpublished inscription from Philippi.
6
L.c. p. 420.71. He makes it look like the mono- 1 1
Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 422.74 (Berlin); Friedlander,
gram of Panormus which was to be expected; cf. BB. v, 1870, pp. 53 f.
also BMC. Sicily, p. 124. 41. 1 2
Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 424.76 (Ravenna).
7 Rather than ethnic. J
3 Cf. Alexander Bala, from Smyrna (Justin
8
Pliny, NH. in, 89; cf.< also, for the form, xxxv, 1. 6. 9). I owe this suggestion to R.
Verg. Aen. 111,703 (?); Silius Italicus xiv, 210; Mela Syme.
11, 118. J
4 CIL. in, 14203; cf. Hatzfeld, BCH. xxxvi,
9 The fact that the same moneyers issued asses 1912, p. 13.
and semisses at Lilybaeum is by no means a reason 5 Av. c. 25 grains.
x

for these quadrantes to be assigned to that mint as a Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 394. 47.
1 6
 THE POMPEIANS 29
1
four others who coined at L i l y b a e u m — A N . ( = Q. A n n i . ) , Q . B. (PL 1,4),* CRASIP.3
4
( = Crassipes), and AP.5 ( = L . Ap« Dec.). I t is necessary to ascribe the last three to
6
the administration o f Sextus, to which Q . Annius may therefore also be attributed.
This arrangement is strikingly corroborated b y the strong resemblance to the whole
series o f a small piece signed b y LIBO?—who is identifiable w i t h Sextus's father-in-
8
law L . Scribonius Libo, w h o was w i t h him i n Sicily. The praetorian rank o f L . Libo
confirms doubts whether all or any o f the Sextian moneyers were quaestors: similar
variations are found at Octavian's military mint at Lipara (p. 52).
The issues probably to be ascribed to Agrigentum thus fall into the t w o chrono-
logical groups found also at Lilybaeum,* and i t is possible to say that both mints
functioned "under Pompey, were suppressed b y Caesar, revived b y Sextus i n c. 43/42,
and suppressed by Octavian. Our prosopographical knowledge o f the administration
o f Sextus is enlarged b y the addition o f a number o f officers—L. Appuleius Decianus,
Furius Crassipes, Q . Annius, Q . B., L . Cnorius and C. Allius Bala. N o r is this all
the information which the coinages o f Sextus provide.

8. PANORMUS
10
Equally interesting are bronze pieces w i t h the reverse legend H I S P A N O R V M , most
o f which have the late Spanish type o f a horseman. Some specimens have a head o f
Minerva (PL I , 11) imitated closely from denarii struck i n Spain b y M . Poblicius
legatus for Cn. Pompeius junior. Type and head combined establish a terminus post
11

quern o f c. 48 B . C . " But the Spanish analogies cannot alter the fact that the provenance
13
o f the series is entirely Sicilian. This combination makes i t very difficult to resist the
conclusion that the occasion o f issue was the influx o f Spaniards into Sicily w i t h
Sextus i n c. 43-42. This deduction is corroborated b y the strong resemblance o f the
14

rougher o f the t w o stylistic groups, into which the series falls (PL I , 10), to a coin
1
Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 424; cf. Rn. 1869, p. 181.35. BMCR. 11, p. 364. 72; cf. Heuten, Rev. beige
1 1

* Ibid. p. 367. 23a, b (BM). de la Philologie et d'Histoire, xiv, 1935, p. 713.

3
Ibid. p. 370.25 (BM). Pace Willers, Geschichte, p. 98; Gomez-
1 9

4
See note 13, p. 26. Moreno, Anuario del Cuerpo Facultativo de Archi-
5 Bahrfeldt, l.c p. 423.75 e (Berlin). veros, 11, 1934; Amoros, Rassegna • Monetaria,
6
His issue here must be classed with that of xxxni, 1936, p. 452.
Ap., etc, not M\ Adli. This was recognised as early as Paruta, La
1 3

7
Landolina-Paterno, Ricerche numismatiche suW Sicilia (1612), and by all subsequent writers, e.g.
antica Sicilia, p. 29 (his own coll.). The wreath on the Heiss, Annuaire de la Soc. de numismatique, 111,1868,
reverse is not comparable to the Lilybaeum type; p. 209. Some found at Agrigentum (own coll.,
cf. also a QB quadrans (Bahrfeldt, l.c p. 366.22 a, b). acquired in Rome); others in Catania Univ. collec-
8
Cf.Munzer,/ ^ .(2/2.)n,883;Syme,/2/?.p.228. tion (De Agostino, Archivio storico per la Sicilia
, r

* But there MVAcili. stands alone in the earlier orientate, xxxi, 1935).
period. Dio XLVIH, 17 etc.; cf. Heiss, I.e.; Scramuzza,
1 4

1 0
Spectrogram 66. ES. 111, p. 309.
3 o COINAGE BY IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

celebrating the foundation o f mimicipium Panormus i n c. 44-43 ( P i . V I , 2 [p. 190]).

Attribution o f the coinages w i t h H I S P A N O R V M to the same city is confirmed by the
1
survival o f specimens overstruck on Panormitan local coins. The same group is often
signed by L . I V N I . LEG(atus) SIC(iliae) (Pi. I , i o ) , whose unusual title foreshadows
2

the creation o f the legatus Augusti provinciae.

A t this time the local Sicilian coinage is limited to issues commemorating the
municipalisation o f the cities under the Lex luiia o f 44 (p. 189) and—as a foundation
coinage o f C. Caninius Rebilus at Cephaloedium proves (p. 192)—by Sextus after his
occupation o f the island i n 43-42. The astonishing legend H I S P A N O R V M is there-
fore best explained i n connection w i t h the establishment o f Roman cities. I t is i n the
highest degree probable that land at these was allotted w i t h civitas to the Spanish
immigrants, who were Sextus's loyalest partisans. They may have been established i n
colonies, but there are also many parallels for the drafting o f settlers to municipia
(p. 155); i n either case L . Junius supervised the settlement and issued the coinage. 3

Since, as has been said, there are two stylistic varieties o f this series, i t must be con-
sidered an official inauguratory coinage from two mints: official issues w i t h a similar
purpose have been ascribed to C. Clovius (p. 7), were being made i n Macedonia at
about this very time by Q*. Hortensius (p. 33), and occur a few years later i n Crete and
Mauretania (pp. 57, 59).

9. SYRACUSE

The other group o f H I S P A N O R V M coins (PL I , n ) * is much more artistic i n

execution. I t is attributable to Syracuse on the grounds o f a deliberate imitation o f
coins o f Hiero II.5 This is shown to be mere archaism, and thus evidence o f mint
rather than o f date, b y the appearance o f the type and head whose lateness has been
pointed out. Like Lilybaeum, Agrigentum and Panormus, Syracuse too had acted as
6
an official mint earlier i n the first century B.C. : i t was part o f Sextus's policy to revive
these Republican institutions, which had been abolished by Caesar. Like Panormus,
Syracuse had presumably been enfranchised i n 44, and these coins indicate that i t too
received a draft o f Spanish settlers from Sextus. The unique nationalist legend
H I S P A N O R V M illustrates the political importance o f the exiles among the more
lukewarm Sicilians, and the two Spanish foundations recorded b y these coinages may
well not have been the only ones made. For example, i t w i l l be shown that some modi-
fication i n the status o f Messana is also probable (p. 194). The deductor (or, i f it was a

E.g. Palermo mus. (Gabrici, pi. X , 27, etc.).

1 3
Cf. Froehner, I.e.; he identifies him con-
These affinities have led to mistaken interpretations jecturally with the Silanus who was refused a con-
of HISPANORVM as PANORM. (e.g. by Heiss, sulship in 21 B.C (PIR. I I , 245).
l.c). * Palermo (Gabrici, pi. X , 29), etc.
Froehner, Rn. 1908, p. 15 (Naples, own coll.);
%
* Cf. Vives 11, p. 31; BMC. Sicily, p. 215. 565ff.
correcting Sestini, Fontana, 1,11, Walcher sale 775, Holm ill, p. 707. 557; coins with Greek ethnic
6

Hu. 1, 258. but signed Q(uaestor). See n. 1, p. 1.

 THE POMPEIANS 31
municipium, constitutor [p. 180]) o f the settlers at Syracuse is not explicitly stated to be
L . Junius, who acted at Panormus, but i t can well have been he. C. Caninius Rebilus,
who performed the same function for Sextus at Cephaloedium (p. 192), is another
possible founder. W r o n g legends have been deduced from the appearance o f several
privy-marks, as on Cretan issues o f the next decade (p. 35).
1

Thus Sextus, on his arrival i n Sicily, reopened all four o f the Republican official
2
mints, or perhaps i t is more accurate to say that he commandeered the local mints
of the four cities for official coinage. T o his brief rule at least, Scramuzza's denial o f
a regular official currency i n Sicily3 cannot be applied: the variegated coinage is i n
accordance w i t h the intense industrial activity which the C i v i l Wars brought to the
4
island. Sextus's issues at Panormus and Syracuse are limited to commemoration o f
the military ceremony o f assignatio; those at Lilybaeum and Agrigentum served more
direct warlike purposes. The list o f his officers is greatly lengthened, and i t is possible
to draw a less shadowy picture o f the administration installed i n 43-42.

10. A SICILIAN PORT

One o f the last o f the Pompeian issues is represented b y an apparently unique coin 5 w i t h
a bearded Janiform head; on the reverse are t w o galleys w i t h high prows and poops,
6 8
accompanied b y the legend • • • N . PISO F R V G I , ROMA(?).? Grueber and Willers
ascribe i t to 91-89 B.C., comparing coins o f Cn. Blasio. I t differs, however, almost
0

totally from these i n style, snaring w i t h them only the commonplace and traditional
Roman type o f a bearded head o f Janus. The view o f Grueber and Willers was rejected
10
by Bahrfeldt, who adhered to his previous o p i n i o n " that analogies o f weight and type
suggest a comparison w i t h the Spanish asses o f Sex. Pompeius (p. 22). He therefore
attributed the coin to the proquaestorship o f C n . Piso Frugi i n Spain i n 49 B . C . "
Both these theories neglect two facts. N o t only is the entire galley as a type for bronze
not k n o w n before the Tarentine (?) coinage o f A n t o n y i n 37 B.C. (p. 43), but a second
peculiarity first introduced b y the latter is the appearance o f three, t w o and one o f
these galleys on tressis, dupondius, and as respectively. N o w this coin (357 grains) is
only a little heavier than Antony's dupondii. That an obscure and exceptional issue like
this could have inspired these t w o features i n the important Tarentine (?) series fifty, or
even twelve, years later is inconceivable. Furthermore, the present piece is markedly
1
E.g. B (Naples), N (Milan), R (Heiss, l.c. pi. 7 Doubted by Bahrfeldt, l.c, and Willers,
X V m , 8). Geschichte, p. 98 n. 2; accepted by Grueber, BMCR.
2
It is noteworthy that his issues of aes in Spain 11, p. 592 (engraved).
also had been distributed among four mints. 8
Ll.cc. p. 592 n. 1, p. 59 ru 1.
3 ES. HI, p. 308. 4
Ibid. p. 309. 9 BMCR. pi. X L V , 5.
5 Pesaro (mus. Olivieri). 1 0
NZ. 1918, p. 105.
6
Read with probability by Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1909, 1 1
NZ. 1909, p. 78.
p. 77; illustrated on his pi. I, 9. " PIR. 11,57. 286.
2
32 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAI US, 49-28 B.C.
distinguished from Pompey's Spanish asses by its fine and delicate lettering and careful
execution. Its general style is reminiscent rather o f an overstruck issue o f Agrippa
at Puteoli(?) i n 37 B.C. (p. 46) than o f any other. The doubts o f Willers as to its
genuineness are based only on its remarkable character, and have rightly not been
1 2
accepted. Cn. Piso Frugi fought for at least three Republican causes, but after
Philippi his career has hitherto been unknown until 23 B.C., the year o f his consulship.
3
Now that was his first post under Augustus. Style precludes attribution to the
dominions o f Antony. Since, then, 37 B.C. is the terminus post quern for this coin, i t
can only be attributed to the last twelvemonth o f Sextus's rule. Thus we can add at
4
least one aristocratic figure to the plebeians and freedmen who remained as his lieu-
tenants after the treaty o f Misenum.5 His omission o f any title recalls the silver coinage
6
o f another o f Sextus's helpers, Q. Nasidius; probably he and Piso held some extra-
constitutional praefectura, like other moneyers w h o omitted their tides under Antony
(p. 37) and Octavian (p. 66). The strictly Republican nature o f the types is likely to be
due to Piso's o w n principles, since the aurei and denarii o f Sextus are often dynastic i n
character. N o doubt the latter, like his opponents, claimed an imperium maius, and the
coinage, like all others o f the period, was ultimately the product o f this. The probable
appearance o f the word R O M A on this piece shows the ultimate objective o f such an
imperium. The latest issues o f his moneyers at Lilybaeum and Agrigentum are approxi-
mately contemporary w i t h this isolated mintage, which seems to have been intended
as a counterblast to the 'Fleet' series o f Antony, Agrippa and Lepidus, to which this
coin chronologically belongs.

E.g. by PIR. l.c.

1 2 2
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 199. * Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 56 n. 1; Syme,
3 Tac. Ann. 11, 43. RR. p. 228.
4
Cf. Groag, Klio, xiv, 1914, pp. 51 ff.; Syme, BMCR. 11, p. 564. 21.
6

RR. p. 201.
 THE REPUBLICANS 33

C. T H E R E P U B L I C A N S

1. MACEDONIA (THESSALONICA?)

Cn. Piso Frugi, whose coinage has just been discussed, was the remnant o f a more
genuine but briefer attempt to revive the moribund Republic, under Brutus and
Cassius. This is represented, i n aes, by coinages o f Q . Hortensius and o f P. Lepidus
w i t h P. Licinius. W e have seen (p. 10) that, on the former, Gaebler's reverse reading
1
• • • P.F. C O L O N . D E D . L [ E G ] . should be altered to P R A E F . C O L O N . D E D V . (Pi. I I ,
8 ) ; there is also room for a few letters more. W i t h regard to the obverse legend, faith
and the knowledge that Q . Hortensius was proconsul cannot, unfortunately, confirm
Gaebler's interpretation Q . H O R T E N S I . P R O [COS.]. O n one o f the two extant
pieces ( P i . I I , 7) (as on a specimen now undiscoverable ), the third letter o f the title
2

is undoubtedly a Q, and is followed by a pellet.3 But Q . Hortensius Hortalus, whose

head appears here, was not pro quaestore: i n fact, he was empowered w i t h the control
o f such officials. However, his proconsulare imperium had the unusual limitation o f
4

6
subordination to that o f his nephew Brutus,* officially Q . Caepio Brutus, whose
mention on the coin is therefore not improbable. As a conjecture, subject to the
future discovery o f a legible specimen, i t is possible to hazard the readings Q. H O R -
T E N S I ^ ) PR(o) Q . \Q\aepione) B(ruto)] P R A E F . C O L O N . D E D V . [PR(o
consule)*]. A praefectus is b y nature a substitute,* and a coin o f Parium shows a
municipal official actually described as P R A E F . P R O I I V I R . (p. 249). The novelty o f
the imperium mains might well justify such a phrase, and a second Republican issue
w i l l reveal a possible parallel (p. 36).
The policy i n which Hortensius played a part is illustrated by several passages i n
Appian. He records that Brutus, i n his speech to the people on 16 March 44 B.C.,
10
deplored Sulla's and Caesar's policy o f military foundations, but nevertheless dealt
scrupulously w i t h those w h o m the latter had promised an allotment (oi olKioOnao-
usvoi"). He promised the confirmation o f all the dictator's grants o f land, and, w i t h
Cassius, implemented his promise b y praetorian edicts—8icnx5cyuoccnv olcc orpcrrTiyoi
TOOS KXnpoOxovs £6epcnrsvov. Thus the appointment as praefectus o f Hortensius, whose
M

1
ZfN. xxxvi, 1926, p. 137. 6
Cf. Munzer, PW. x, 976; Hatzfeld, BCH. 1909,
* Sestini, Fontana, 1, pi. I l l , 10; Hedervar., n, p. 467.
p. 107. 23; cf. Cohen, Description kistorique aes 7 The Wiczay piece (n. 2) is supposed to have the
monnaies frappies sous I*empire romain, I , p. 47. very similar letter S.
95. The legitimacy of this abbreviation is shown by
8

3 Berlin. Cyrenaic coins; cf. below, p. 138.

4
Cic. XPhil. 26—e.g. L. Sestius. Cf. Zumpt, Commenta Epigraphica, 1, pp. 54 ff.
9

5 Ibid., cf. Gaebler, NG. 111, 1, p. 7; Munzer, BC. 11, 138-41.

1 0

PW. vm, 2. 2468 f.; see below, p. 414. " Ibid. 139. Ibid, m, 2.
, a

B
34 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
provincia included Achaia, Macedonia and Illyria to the River D r i l o n , coincided w i t h
1

the initiation o f a conciliatory colonisation scheme by Brutus. O n the obverse o f one

2
c f our two specimens there is a wand that may be apertica, and the composition o n
the reverse (misinterpreted from the second specimen 3 by Gaebler) includes a plough,
vexillum, and yoke —all types connected w i t h colonial foundation.
4

I t w i l l be shown i n connection w i t h the colonial coinage that both D i u m and

Cassandrea were established b y Hortensius (p. 273). His plan, cut short by the Philippi
5
campaign i n which he met his end, no doubt embraced the other foundations which
remained for completion by a legatus o f Antony (p. 274). Both D i u m and Cassandrea
strike small foundation issues w i t h local ethnic or type; the style o f the present coin
suggests a different origin from either, and its scope—like that o f similar mintages by
Clovius and Appuleius Decianus—was clearly that o f an official issue destined for the
region comprised i n the colonial scheme.
Clovius has inaugurated the custom o f official foundation coinage; Appuleius pro-
vides an early example o f adsignatio b y regular provincial officials. The appointment
of Hortensius signalises a new era by the identification o f provincial founder w i t h
governor. His predecessors T i . Nero and L . Plautius Plancus (p. 9) were, like Clovius,
praefecti outside the provincial system; but his contemporary L . Munatius Plancus,
adsignator i n Gallia Comata, is already governor, and so are all later provincial
6

founders (p. 45 5). Thepraefectura at which Cicero had sneered (p. 9) had lost much o f
its offensiveness by being merged, and the title itself does not occur again.
The Lex Coloniae Genetivae luliaej which announces Caesar's innovations o f the
forties w i t h regard to Roman cities—from which Brutus, i n his punctilious adhesion
to the Caesarian scheme, did not deviate—defines the following as colonial patroni:
(1) qui earn colon(iam) deduxerit—at municipia the w o r d would be constituent—
(2) cui c(p!onis) a(grorum) a\andorum) a(dsignandorum) i(us) ex lege Iulia est. Horten-
sius, like Clovius, is i n the former category o f deductores-constitutores, who drew up
the colonial leges datae? The second group consists'of adsignatores (curatores)?
perhaps sometimes dispensed w i t h , who were entrusted w i t h a locatio operis i n
10

accordance w i t h the general principles propounded b y the Lex Mamilia Rescia

Peducaea Alliena Fabia o f 55 B . C . : they, also, can be identified on a number o f coins
11

(p. 294). These two classes o f official superseded the Republican Illviri agris dandis
adsignandis (p. 9). The significance o f the new commissioners, o f w h o m Clovius and

1
Cic. X Phil. 26; cf. Ganter, p. 31. Cf. Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, p. 8.
8

2
BM. Berlin.
3
9 Rudorff, Gromatische Institutionen, p. 334;
4
Identified by E. S. G. Robinson. Marquardt, St. V. 1, p. 458. For curator applied
5
Velleius n, 71; cf. Syme, RR. p. 205; pace loosely to the founder, cf. Jullian, TP. p. 28.
Volkmann, Munchener Beitrdge \. Papyrusforschung, Hardy, l.c. p. 43 n. $8.
1 0

xxi, 1935, p. 19. Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im romischen Italien,

1 1

6
ILS. 886% pp. 126 ff.; cf. Stuart ]<Snes,JRS. 1936, p. 270;pace
7
ILS. 6087 (ch. 97). Fabricius, SB. Heidelberg, xv, 1924-5, p. 8.
 THE REPUBLICANS 35
L. Plancus were among the first, was their direct subordination to the orders o f the
Imperator \ and this significance remains when the governors combined such com-
x

missions with their own duties. Thus the numismatic and historical phenomenon o f
the unrecognised praefectus coloniis deducendis is closely connected w i t h the new era
of autocracy, and directly derived from the imperium maius of the autocrats. Hortensius
no doubt owed the signal honours o f aes coinage and portraiture (p. 33) to his kinship
2 3
with Brutus, for whose sake he had deserted the memory o f favours from Julius.

2. CNOSSUS(?)

It is possible to identify another issue o f the Republicans from an unexpected source.

It bears the heads o f Libya and Creta-Artemis; the inscriptions have been restored by
4
E. S. G. Robinson, from the four specimens known to him, as follows: AIBYH, P.
L I C I N I V S PRO Q.—KPHTA B, P. L I C I N I V S P. F. PRO Q. P R - - - . But a
further example (Pi. I I , 15)5 makes i t clear that the correct reverse reading is P.
L E P I D . , etc. Thus P. Licinius was not pro quaestore o f a joint province, but only o f
6
Cyrenaica; Crete was i n the hands o f another officer, P. Lepidus.
The style of these little pieces suggests the years immediately following the dictator-
ship; i n particular, the coiffure which Libya wears here was i n fashion during the late
forties,? and appears on Republican aes as well as silver o f c. 43. By an unusual stroke
8

of fortune, i t is possible to identify the newly discovered P. Lepidus from the historical
records o f this date. I n the summer o f 44 Crete was among the provinces assigned to
Brutus.* A gesture by Antony, who decreed its libertas et immunitas for the future, 10

from an apparently fictitious Caesarian document," caused a temporary wave o f feeling

12
in favour o f his faction, but i t was not long before a lieutenant o f Brutus gained
13 14
possession o f the island. This officer was called Lepidus and was perhaps a kinsman
of the triumvir 5 (whose brother L . Paullus was likewise a Republican ). The identifica-
x 16

tion o f this Lepidus w i t h our signatory is confirmed by stylistic suitability and by the
explicit mention o f KPHTA as the province o f Publius. When Brutus was appointed
1
Cf. Marquardt, St. V. 1, p. 448. 1 0
Cic. / / Phil. 38. 97; not merely immunitas, as
2
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 171. e.g. Ker, adloc; Romanelli, CAH. xi, p. 659.
3
Ibid. p. 205. 1 1
Cic.l.c.
4
BMC. Cyrenaica, p. 113. 2 f.; cf. p. ccxii. " Dio XLVII, 21. 1; cf. Raven, NC. 1938, p. 146.
5
Berlin ('uncertain'). 1 3
An alternative account by Paribeni {Di(tonario
6
R. Syme informs me that he is likely to epigrafico, 11, 2. 165), placing Lepidus's occupation
be a Lucullus or a Crassus. For Crassi Juniani before Antony's decree, does not take all the evi-
in Republican camps vide Munzer, PW. xm, dence into consideration; cf. also Borghesi, (Euvres,
347. 11, p. 400.
7
Cf. Stephan, PW. Suppl. vi, 91. 1 4
Appian, BC. v, 2; cf. Raven, l.c.
8
E.g. BMCR. 11, p. 396, cf. n. 2 (?Fulvia). *5 As conjectured by White (Loeb ed.), Appian,
9
Sternkopf, Hermes, XLVII, 1912, pp. 381 ff.; l.c.
cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 9 n.. 3.
1 6
Appian, BC. iv, 2; cf. Klebs, PW. 1,564 (81).
36 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.
1
to Crete, Cyrenaica was allotted to Cassius: their joint leadership o f the Republican
cause amply suffices to explain the conjunction on the same coins o f t w o Roman
officers, explicitly apportioned to different regions. A second reason for their com-
bination i n this way may have been the temporary inability o f P. Licinius to establish
a separate mint i n Cyrenaica owing to the difficulties o f wresting that region from its
2
anti-Republican neighbour Egypt. This was, however, finally achieved, as an unknown
and unique coin shows; and P. Licinius even planted an ephemeral colony at Cyrene
(p. 261).
But these pieces are Cretan rather than Cyrenaican i n style, and are therefore to be
attributed to the Republican occupation o f the island b y P. Lepidus, which apparently
preceded the Cyrenaican adventure. Lepidus's exact title is unrecoverable from the
five extant specimens. Robinson conjectures P R O Q(uaestore) P R [ 0 PR](aetore)J
4
which is supported b y the analogy o f L . Lentulus at the same date; but the other
bronze issue o f the Republicans, i n Macedonia, has suggested the possibility, albeit
conjectural, o f another interpretation, P R O Q . BR(wro) PR(o cos.) (p. 33), a formula
that might have been caused b y the new phenomenon o f the imperium maius. The
seniority o f P. Lepidus to his colleague would be entirely i n accordance w i t h the fact
that there was a fleet-station i n Crete5 (where the capital x>f the joint province had
6
been ), and that the Cassian expeditionary force to Cyrenaica may not yet have ob-
tained a foothold; its advertisement was probably one o f the aims o f this coinage. But
particularly significant is the fact that, on 28 November 43, Brutus and Cassius were
officially deprived o f these t w o provinces,? which they had at first, until their assump-
8
tion o f wider powers, refused to take over. I t is highly probable that the coins were
struck on the receipt o f the news o f this deprivation, as a gesture o f defiance and a
demonstration that the territories were i n the hands o f Republicans. I t may, therefore,
be considered a military issue b y the representative o f Brutus i n Crete, i n the months
immediately preceding Philippi and P. Lepidus's subsequent flight.* The coin may be
10
attributed to Cnossus, since the ships were probably at its port, Heracleum.
Thus the Republican coinages o f the period, like those o f the dictator, are directly
derived from the imperium maius o f their respective war-lords.

Sternkopf, Lc. p. 384.

1
Cf. Romanelli, CAH. xi, p. 663.
6

* Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 18; cf. Tarn, ibid. 7 Cf. Syme, RR. p. 184 n. 1.
p. J9- Ibid. p. 166; Gelzer, PW. x, 1000; cf. Dio XLVII,
8

3 L . c , p. ccxii. He cites P R O Q. P. on coins; 21. 1.

BMCR. 11, p. 491. 9 Appian, L c
Cic. Fam. XII, 15 init.
4
5 Appian, BC. v, 2. Cf. Burchner, PW. xi, 927.
1 0
 THE TRIUMVIRS 37

D. T H E T R I U M V I R S

1. ITALY (BRUNDUSIUM?)

The first bronze coins after the establishment o f the triumvirate by the Lex Titia have
the types o f a prow and a beardless head o f Janus, inscribed respectively A N T O N I V S
I M P . and A T R A T I N V S A V G V R (PL I I , 9 ) . Willers attributes their lower limit to
1

36 B.C.* But L . Sempronius Atratinus was probably legatus pro praetore o f Antony i n
Achaia i n c. 39-37 (p. 382)^ moreover, Antony invariably uses the cognomen with
number, never alone, after his second salutation i n the autumn o f 39. Accordingly, 4

the terminus ante quern may be moved back to 39.5 This eliminates the suggestion o f
6
De Salis that these coins were struck i n the East, since Antony did not leave Italy
until a very short time before his second salutation.? Atratinus might conceivably have
preceded him to the East to assume his governorship, but he could not then have
omitted on his coinage the title legatus pro praetore, i n favour o f the unauthoritative
augur. A n upper limit for the issue is fixed at 40 B.C. b y his election to the augurate. 8

A n even closer attribution is possible. I n 40, Atratinus could hardly have collabo-
rated w i t h Antony until about September, and could not safely have coined i n his
interests i n Italy during the troubled weeks immediately preceding the reconciliation:
the coinage must follow this. O n the other hand, Antony was saluted imperator a
second time almost as soon as he reached Athens, and the break i n his journey at
Zacynthus w i l l be seen to be celebrated by another commander, C. Sosius (p. 40). I t is
difficult, therefore, to see where Atratinus can have coined outside Italy. There are
0
several considerations which make Borghesi's attribution to Rome itself unacceptable.
Antony could not well have ignored his colleague i n this way at the capital; Atratinus
is unlikely to have been a monetary quattuorvir—as the title apparently was at this
10
time —since the appellation which he uses is far more unplausible as a pretext for
coinage; finally, on general grounds there is no probability o f just a single isolated
exception to the sixty years' lack o f bronze coinage at Rome. But the attribution to
Italy can be supported b y historical evidence, numismatic parallels, and analogies o f
titulature. I n the first place, Antony certainly possessed recruiting rights i n the
1
Milan, Capitoline, Bourgey sale, 1913. 712, * This invalidates the suggestion of Syme,
Lawrence coll. (c. 221*5 grains). RR. p. 231 n. 2, that the issue is Sicilian.
2
Geschichte, pp. 113 f.; cf. Borelli, Numismatica 6
Cf. Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 50.
e science affini, iv, 1938, p. 55, who classes these with 7 Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 51.
a later series. 8
ILS. 9398; cf. Munzer, Hermes, L I I , 1917,
3 ILS. 9461; cf. Munzer, PW. 11,1367. pp. 152 S.; id. PW. 11,1366 ff.
4
BMCR. 11, pp. 506 ff., IMP. T E R . The only 9 (Euvres, 11, p. 417; cf. Babelon, Rn. 1884,
coin believed to read IMP. I T E R . (ibid. p. 505) p. 413.
is very doubtful. Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 50 n. 1, 1 0
Cf. BMCR. 1, pp. 565. 4198,593. 4313.
correcting Bahrfeldt, JIAN. xn, 1910, p. 89.
38 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

peninsula after October 40 and assigned lands to his veterans there: hindrances i n
1 2

3
the way o f his exercise o f these rights were later a cause for indignant complaint. Dio's
omission o f Italy from the new provincia o f Octavian shows that i t was theoretically
4

common ground.* Secondly, not only w i l l the following pages provide several
examples o f Italian aes mintage (pp. 43, 46), but recent research on contemporary
silver issues can be adduced to show that Antonian coinage was certainly being issued
6
at this period within the peninsula. Liegle has established w i t h success that a group
o f denarii w i t h P I E T A S COS., and the head and title o f A n t o n y , were struck i n 41
7

by L . Antonius at Praeneste, not, as Grueber believed, i n Gaul or the East. I t is thus

8 0 10
unreasonably arbitrary to emend or reject the explicit statement o f Servius that
Antony coined at Anagnia also. Moreover, a second group with P I E T A S C O S . " —
o f different style from the others—is undoubtedly from a mint near, but not at,
Praeneste—from which Anagnia is a mere twenty miles away! Furthermore, coins o f
12
Ventidius Bassus, again without any cause described by Grueber as 'provincial', are
13
convincingly reattributed to Italy, where Ventidius was certainly employed at the time
14 1
o f the Perusine W a r ; Q. Salvius Salvidienus Rufus, who coined at the same time, * is
16
known to have been before Perusia. The attribution o f the coin o f Atratinus to Italy is
therefore not only itself historically plausible, but supported by numerous parallels.
Furthermore, the titulature supplies evidence o f a specific connection o f our aes
17
coin w i t h some o f these Italian issues. The heads on certain coins o f Salvius and o f the
second P I E T A S COS. g r o u p are precisely the same as those on two denarii which
18

bear ( i n conjunction w i t h CAESAR I M P . ) the exceptional title o f the aes—

A N T O N I V S I M P . The praenomen is regularly omitted from about this time by
10

Octavian, but never by Antony except on these silver and bronze issues: on the latter
its absence is emphasised b y the insertion o f the praenomen o f Atratinus. The co-
incidence is not accidental. I n anticipation o f a fuller constitutional discussion (p. 408),
it may be mentioned that Julius, omitting the salutation number, had also called him-
self CAESAR IMP.—which is on the way from C. CAESAR I M P . to I M P . C A E S A R .
Much more striking than the simple cognomen is the solitary gentile name 'Antonius*.
1
Appian, BC. v, 65; Dio L, I . 3. ad Verg. Aen. vi, 684.
1 0

• Cf. Jullian, TP. pp. 17 f. BMCR 11, p. 402. 69.

1 1

3
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 276; cf. p. 294. Ibid. p. 403. 73.
1 2

4
XLVIII, 28. 4. As Mattingly informs me.
1 3

5 In any case, the second Edict of Octavian to Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 29; Syme, RR.
1 4

Rhosus (c. 35 B.C.) shows that the triumvirs could p. 210.

act in each other's territories; vide Levi, Rivista di 5 BMCR. 11, p. 407. 86 ff.
J

fiblogta, 1938, p. 116. Cf. Charlesworth, l.c; Syme, l.c. p. 209.

1 6

6
ZfN. 1932, pp. 80 ff. BMCR. 11, p. 407. 88.
1 7

7
BMCR. 11, p. 400. 65 ff. Ibid. p. 402. 69.
1 8

8
Svoronos, Ptolemies, 1897-8; cf. Regling, Ibid. p. 409. 94 and 93 respectively. There are
1 0

ZfN. xxv, 1906, p. 397. no grounds for Miss Newby's attribution of this to
9 Laffranchi, Bollettino dinumismatica, 1911, p. 162.43 (P- 9)-
 THE TRIUMVIRS 39
The triumvirs, like Sex. Pompeius, are testing the possibilities o f titulature, which
Octavian is to develop remarkably. Antony, however, not only does not use the
praenomen Imperatoris, but after his second salutation always adds the number. He also
returns to his personal praenomen. These denarii and asses, by their unique suppression
of this, show a temporary uniformity to the constitutional programme o f Octavian.
Correspondence o f the aes and the denarii w i t h each other and w i t h historical
circumstances cannot be fortuitous. I t has been established that they are both Italian.
They are also products o f the same phase. I t has been proved that the aes were struck
between autumn 40 and autumn 39: i t is thus significant that the silver show a
caduceus, which is likely to symbolise the reconciliation o f the triumvirs at the Pact o f
Brundusium, i n October 40. Indeed, both aes and silver may well have been struck
1 2

in that municipium;* the Pact o f Tarentum may provide a parallel example o f such
commemorative types (p. 45) at the city where the agreement took place. But the
raison d'itre o f the present aes coinage, as o f the Tarentine and o f nearly every other
aes issue o f the triumvirate, is likely to have been primarily military or naval: and the
coinages which follow show that Antony's departure from Italy was coincident w i t h
a reorganisation o f his fleet. Since Atratinus was one o f the officers later sent w i t h a
naval detachment to assist Octavian i n Sicily, i t is reasonable to believe that he was
appointed to a naval praefectura as early as the reorganisation i n 39, i n the same way as
C. Sosius (p. 40) (who, like him, was soon afterwards, in c. 38, appointed to a governor-
ship). Antony had arrived i n Italy w i t h a fleet, and left i t w i t h a fleet: i t is certain that
the work o f reconstruction began before Antony left the valuable recruiting ground
of Italy, and probable that Atratinus was i n charge o f it, perhaps at Brundusium itself.
His omission o f the title praefectus—if he held this—is explicable by reason o f its
unofficial and irregular character, to which attention has already been called. Caesar
might have risked the sneers o f constitutionalists, but the new rulers took greater pains
to save appearances (p. 415). The official basis o f the issue, as o f its successors during
this period, was the imperium maius o f the triumvirs. 4

2. ZACYNTHUS

I n 39 Antony left to take up his headquarters at Athens, where the news o f Ventidius's
victories probably reached him, and he was saluted Imperator for the second time. But
his tranquillity on the journey from Italy was troubled by the knowledge that Sextus
Pompeius had wrung large concessions from the triumvirs at Misenum: A n t o n y him-
self had promised h i m the Peloponnese.5 Sextus later complained that this was never
6
fairly given up to h i m ; and a coinage at this time shows that Antony never seriously
1
Cf. Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 408 n. 2. 3 Cf. Httlsen, PW. in, 905.
* Cf. Carcopino, VirgiU et le Mystere de la 4
Cf. Gabrici, Augustus (1938), p. 379.
IVe £glogue\ pp. i n ff.; Charlesworth, CAH. x, 5 Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 46.
P» 44» 6
Ibid. p. 56; cf. Larsen, ES. iv, p. 433.
40 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

intended to lose the territory. A n orichalcum piece i n the British Museum has a head
1

o f Antony ( P i . I , 9) and an eagle on a thunderbolt, inscribed respectively I M P . and

3
C. SOSIVS Q., ZA.* The attribution ZA to Zacynthus is confirmed by provenance.
The lack o f a number w i t h I M P . provides the reasonable supposition that C. Sosius was
left w i t h a detachment at Zacynthus when Antony passed i t en route for Athens, where
he was saluted for the second time. The quaestorian title o f Sosius has been thought to
cause difficulty only because o f a groundless identification w i t h a praetor o f 49 B.C.5
4

It is difficult to see how Sextus could have occupied the Peloponnese effectively when
Sosius was established at Zacynthus. Probably a detachment still remained there when
the latter took up his Syrian governorship i n 38. His movements from 37 to 34 are
6

unrecorded: 7 but i t is likely that he remained i n Syria for most or the whole o f 7 , and 3
8

his name on a local piece o f Agrigentum (p. 392) shows that he was assisting Octavian
in Sicily i n the last months o f 36. N o doubt he called at Zacynthus earlier i n the year
on his way there from the East: and to this visit may be ascribed a second issue w i t h
ZA and C. SOSIVS IMP.,? accompanied respectively b y Antony's head and b y a
trophy—celebrating the capture o f Jerusalem which earned Sosius his salutation
(PL 1,7).
But this fleet-station had not outlived its use when Sextus, the foe against whom i t
was originally directed, fell. O n the contrary, its need was all the greater i n view o f
the ever-widening gap between the two remaining masters o f the Empire. Thus
Sosius returned there when the Antonian reinforcements i n Sicily were dismissed
by Octavian. A third issue has ZA (head o f Bacchus-Apollo) and C. SOSIVS COS.
D E S I G . (tripod). Sosius had been consuldesignatus as early as 39; but this coin may
10 11

be placed third i n his series owing to the omission o f Antony's head, which is also
absent on a fourth coin, but occurs on the two earliest. Gardner" has pointed out that
this omission implies a greater independence on the part o f Sosius, whose position at
Zacynthus was exceptional b y virtue o f his repeated returns to the island, and its
presumable continuance o f subordination to h i m i n his absence. His status recalls that
of the various princelings established i n other parts o f Antony's dominions at this
13 14
time. The type o f a tripod is unplausibly connected b y Shipley w i t h a statue o f
Apollo brought te Rome b y Sosius i n 33 B . C . ; * W i s s o w a V reference to the quin-
1 6

1
Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 504. Venice; Bahrfeldt, Lc. 3; id. NZ. 1897,
1 0

2
Bahrfeldt, JIAN. vm, 1911, pp. 215 ff., 1; id. p. 76.
JIAN. v, 1908, pp. 221 f.; NZ. 1918, pp. 159 ff. " Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 46 n. 1.
3 Gardner, NC. 1885, pp. 81 ff. " L.c
4
As by Dessau, PIR. 111, 253. 556. Tarn, CAH. x, pp. 69, 80.
1 3

5 C i c Att. vm, 6. 1; ix, 2. Washington University Studies (Lang. Lit.),

1 4

6
Raillard, p. 35; cf. Levi 11, p. 120. ill, 1920, pp. 85 f.
7 Cf. Fluss, PW. (1R.) HI, 1178. *5 Pliny, NH. vm, 53; cf. Glauning, Die An-
8
Cf. Raillard, L c ; Ganter, p. 42. hdngerschaft des M. Antonius and des Octavian, Diss.
9 BM; Bahrfeldt, JIAN. vm, 1911, 2; cf. Mat- Leipzig, 1935, p. 8.
tingly, RC. pi. X X , 14. Ephemeris epigraphica, VIII, p. 241.
1 6
 THE TRIUMVIRS 41
decemvirate is more probable, i f any.special allusion is thought to be necessary. The
coin was struck after the Sicilian campaigns and before Sosius's triumph i n 34 B . C . ; 1

thereafter he probably stayed i n Rome until his famous consulship o f 32. The title
COS. DESIG., preferred even to I M P . on this coin, informed those who saw i t o f
Antony's claims i n Rome and o f an uncomfortable prospect for Octavian. But the
speech w i t h which Sosius inaugurated his consulship, and the imminence o f war which
it did nothing to dispel, necessitated his departure from Rome before January 32 was
2
ended: he is shown to have returned for the last time to Zacynthus—a vital point on
Antony's strategic lines, which extended all down the west coast o f Greece*—by a coin
4
w i t h ZA (head o f Neptune) and C. SOSIVS COS. (dolphin and trident) (Pi. 1,8). He
and his coinage had played a considerable part i n the history and numismatics o f
Antony's dominions; he was lucky to be spared b y Octavian.5
As a moneyer i n orichalcum, Sosius's only precedents were the agents o f Caesar,
whose financial acumen i n this matter has been mentioned, and his only imitator i n the
triumvirate was Q. Oppius, whose family were bankers (p. 61). I t is difficult to resist
6
the conclusion that Sosius—who was also a wealthy man —made an equally 'good
thing' out o f it.

3. NARBONESE G A U L (ARELATE?)

Parallel to these coinages o f Antony are larger military issues by Octavian. The first
8 0
of them7 is o f bronze, w i t h his bare head, inscribed only C A E S A R ; on the reverse
10
is a prow, w i t h high poop and mast. Provenance is conclusive for Gallic mintage.
A beard on one variety" suggests a lower limit o f c. 39-38: anachronism is o f course
12

possible, but a similar date is indicated b y the resemblance o f some o f the heads to
so-called ' Gallic' denarii o f c. 39,^ and o f another (diademed) to denarii apparently
14

issued by Agrippa i n Gaul i n c. 38. * Several other unpublished divergencies o f type

1

exist, which are more important to the study o f ancient ships than to history. Some

1
Cf. Fluss, PW. (2R.), in, 1176 ff. Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen der k. sacks. Ges.
2
Dic*L, 3; cf. CAH. x, p. 95. der Wissenschaften %u Leipzig, ph.-h. Kl. Hi, 1851,
3 Cf. Syme, RR. p. 280. p. 222, is a forgery.
4
Milan, Oxford; Bahrfeldt, l.c. 4; cf. Lambros,
1 0
Vienne (3), Nlmes (2), Narbonne (2); cf. Rn.
'Avocypaq>f| TCOV vopuaucVrcov TTJS KVpfocs 'EAA&Sos, 1899, p. 175. A coin countermarked TTEP (in trade:
neAoir6vvnaos, p. 73. Perga, Pergamum or Perperene) is a complete freak.
5 Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 105.
1 1
Naples.
6
Cf. Fluss, PW. (2R.), HI, 1179.
1 2
Dio XLVIII, 34. 3; cf. Brendel, Ikonographie aes
7
BM, Paris, etc.; cf. Sydenham, NC. 1917, Kaisers Augustus, Diss. Heidelberg, 1931, pp. 38 f.
no. 17 (270, 251 grains [BM]).
X
3 E.g. BMCR. 11, p. 409.92 (pi. C V , 1).
8
Spectrogram 10.
1 4
Hall coll. (cast in BM).
9 A Paris example with D . I V L I V S , described
x
5 BMCR. 11, pp. 410.101, 411.102, 412.103
by de Saulcy, Mdmoires... de numismatique et(pi. CV, 6-8); cf. Berve, Hermes, LXXI, 1936, p. 251
d'archiologie, 1873, P* *> ^ ^ted by Mommsen, n. 3; pace Schulz, ZfN. 1935, p. 103.
2<
42 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

specimens show a small sail, others grapnels and an unusual acrostoliumj while a
1 2

4 5
fourth has an extensive system o f rigging; more remarkable is another ( P i . I I , n ) ,
on which two standards are placed fore and aft o f the mast respectively.
On a further coin—like most o f these, apparently represented by only one extant
6
example, but certainly genuine —in addition to the standards (which here recall the
CTricjstcov of Pollux 7), there is a mast-box, and from the acrostolium to the mast-head
is a conventional representation apparently of the mainsail straining i n the w i n d . There
are also remains o f lettering, which, though, not decipherable with certainty, seem to
8
include the letters A R . I t is by no means improbable that they represent part o f the
9
mint-mark o f Arelate, since this piece, like the rest, is o f French provenance. The
10
hypothetical ethnic C V on other coins is rightly rejected by W i l l e r s : i t has been tooled
or imagined from the various superstructures o f the galley.
A large number o f specimens w i t h these types have a countermark which is not
elsewhere found. De Saulcy" interprets this as the protome o f a dog, W i l l e r s as a 12

dolphin. But i t is clear from examples o f the principal variety (Pi. I I , i o ) , 3 and from x

that with AR.(?), that a bird is represented, facing right. The legs are clearly visible,
and the general appearance strongly suggests a cock. N o w even i f the original meaning
of gallus is not gallicum animal * and its popular national significance is merely based
1 15

16
on a play upon words, the existence o f this pun, combined w i t h the known confusion
o f its meanings 7 and with the frequency o f types parlants on ancient coins, seems to
x 18

justify the assumption that this countermark is intended to ensure Gallic circulation
for these issues. But they do not appear w i t h contemporary bronze o f Gallia Comata
19 20
in the extensive Neuss finds; and there seems nothing i n favour o f E. A . Sydenham's
attribution to Lugdunum, whose contemporary colonial issues are wholly different i n
style (p. 206). Since the coins originate from the south o f France, and the mint-marks
21

of a Narbonese city may appear, i t may be justifiable to limit their validity, as defined
by the ' Gallic' countermark, to the old provincia. Sosius has already placed Antony's

Copenhagen, BM(?).
1 1 4
Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, VI, 1685, 1. 44, s.v.
%
Paris. 3 Pans. Gallus.
Seen in trade—from Vierordt collection
4 1 5
Cf. Hatzfeld-Darmesteter, Dictionnaire giniral
(Schulman sale 1923. 661); it appears to have been de la langue francaise, 1, p. 538.
cleaned, but has probably not been tooled. 1 6
Ducrocq, Le coq pritendu gaulois, 1908; cf.
Cambridge.
5
Chatelain, Bibliotheque de V£cole des hautes e'tudes,
6
Own collection. CLXII, 1908, p. 71 n. 5.
1, 90; cf. Smith, Dictionary of Antiquities, 11,
7
Shipp, CR. L, 1936, pp. 164 f.
1 7

p. 215. 1 8
Cf. especially Eckhel, DN. v, pp. 90 f. and a
8
A photograph could not reproduce these traces, collection at Utrecht (van Hoorn, Gids, p. 51).
9
Acquired in Paris. X
9 Strack, BJ. cxn, 1904, pp. 444 ff.
1 0
NZ. xxxiv, 1902, p. 119. 27. 3 0
NC. 1917, p. 58.
1 1
JIAN. 1, 1898, p. 191. 2 1
Attributed to Narbo(?) in Milan Cat., p. 23.233,
1 2
L«c. and to Vienna by Duchalais, Description des
1 3
Paris, Copenhagen. mddailles gauloises, p. 20.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 43
head on his coins, but this is the first official bronze issue to bear the effigy o f Octavian.
It is characteristic o f his aims at this period to be plain CAESAR, while the beard on
a Naples specimen (as on denarii) is further evidence o f his claim to succeed Julius. 1

The analogy o f contemporary aes issues, and the varieties o f naval type, suggest
that, as often, provision was being made for the fleet. Points o f comparison w i t h
denarii o f c. 39-38 have been summarised: this was a period when Agrippa was active
2 3
in Gaul, and the river harbour at Arelate may ( i f the conjectural reading A R . is
correct) have been his Narbonese headquarters. I t had been made a naval arsenal and
4
a colony by Julius,5 and not long afterwards became the economic centre o f its
6
province.

4. TARENTUM(?)

Antony now made a more elaborate attempt to create a coinage o f small change i n
7
bronze. His titulature on this famous but enigmatic' Fleet* coinage is M . A N T . I M P .
TER. COS. DES. I T E R . E T T E R . I I I V I R R. P. C ; Bahrfeldt establishes its outer-
most chronological limits as the autumn o f 38 and the autumn o f 35. O n the reverses
8

of its three groups are the legends L . B I B V L V S M . F. PR. DESIG., L . A T R A T I N V S

A V G V R COS. DESIG., and M . OPPIVS C A P I T O P R O PR. P R A E F . CLASS.
10
F. C.;° coins bearing the name o f C. Fonteius Capito are tooled or false. Complete
uniformity o f style and types decreases the possibility o f more than a single m i n t . "
After the Treaty o f Tarentum (spring 37 ), Antony lent Octavian 120 or 130 ships
12

13
(two squadrons ) for the war against Sextus; the types o f these coins—hippocamp-
quadriga, galleys, acrostolium, triskeles *—clearly refer to the prosecution o f that cam-
1

paign. Grueber sees i n them' an accomplished fact'; 5 he therefore agrees w i t h Miinzer

x 16

in assigning the issue to a date after the battle o f Naulochus (3 September 36). But
there are numerous obstacles i n the way o f attribution to so late a date. I t may be
mentioned first that a triskeles w i l l be seen to appear also on a coin which cannot be
later than 37 (p. 46). Secondly, Grueber's theory is contradictory: he, like others, 17

1
C f . Bernhart, Handbuch iur Munikunde, p. 34; 9 Ibid. nos. 1-6, 7-13, 14-22 respectively.
AJA. 1921, p. 261 n. 3. Ibid. p. 25, pace Caland, De nummis M.
1 0

2
C f . Charlesworth, CAH. x , p. 46; L e v i n , Antonii etc., Diss. Leyden, 1883, pp. 66 ff.
p. 65. Bahrfeldt, l.c. p. 40, pace Cavedoni, Numismatica
1 1

3
Ihm, PW. 11, 643; Grenier, ES. 111, p. 473. Biblica, p. 120 n. 197; Caland, l.c. pp. 73 ff.
4
Cf. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, 111, " T a r n , CAH. x, p. 54, especially n. 3.
pp. 322 n., 321; Constant, Aries, p. 56. L e v i 11, p. 73 n. 1.
1 3

5
Caesar, Bell. Civ. 1, 36; 11, 5. Emblem of Sicily; cf. Ziegler, PW. (2R.), 11,
1 4

6
Constant, l.c. p. 405. 467f. x
5 BMCR. 11, p. 410.
7
Not orichalcum, pace Grueber, BMCR. 11, PW. 11, 1367. Accepted by Newby (p. 12);
1 6

p. 412 n. 2. Analysed, NC. 1904, p. 244 n.; cf. NC. L e v i , Rivista difilologia, 1938, p. 114; Milne, De-
1918, p. 181. velopment of Roman Coinage, p. 21.
8
Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1905, p. 31. F o r illustrations, E . g . Babelon, Monnaies de la ripublique romaine,
1 7

see that article. 1, p. 190; Caland, l.c. pp. 69 ff.; Milne, I.e.
44 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28b.c.
assigns the issues to the East, although the appearance o f the name o f Atratinus on
local Sicilian issues o f Entella and Lilybaeum (p. 392) must be dated to the last months
o f 36—the very time to which he ascribes the present coinage. Others who accept 1

2
Grueber's dating less inconsistently attribute the present issues to Sicily. But i t is
possible to show that the coins were struck before the end o f the war. I n the first
place, i t must have been for a fleet that such distinctive types were struck; whereas
after Naulochus, although Atratinus at least was active i n Sicily, he had no naval duties,
3
since the Antonian fleet was i n dock at Tarentum: indeed, Entella, whose coins he
signs, is far inland. Secondly, the issue was early enough for Cn. Piso, a lieutenant o f
Sextus, to imitate a reverse-type (p. 31). I t is therefore necessary, contrary to Grueber
and Munzer, to establish the batde o f Naulochus as a terminus ante quern.
There are, however, additional reasons for believing that the coins could not have
been issued even as late as 36. The head o f Octavia appears w i t h Antony on the se-
stertii, and w i t h Octavian also on the tresses* N o w i t was only a few months after
the Treaty o f Tarentum, i n 37, that Antony finally abandoned Octavia i n favour o f
6 7
Cleopatra.5 Tarn, unlike L e v i , believes that he married Cleopatra later i n the same
8
year, and i t is at any rate certain that their joint regnal era commenced then. I t was no
doubt discreet to omit Cleopatra's name and portrait from Roman issues for as long
as possible, but i t is almost inconceivable that Antony's intimate lieutenants could
deliberately act such an unplausible and useless lie on their coinage after the volte-face.
0
On the other hand, the obverse types—heads of Antony, Octavian, and Octavia—are
10
entirely suitable to the Treaty o f Tarentum: Octavia's latest portrait on gold and
silver coins was i n connection w i t h this event." Other considerations demonstrate the
peculiar applicability o f this date. W e know that Antony sent only two squadrons to
the Sicilian campaigns, and the evidence of an official coinage o f Lipara (p. 52) proves
12

that Oppius, as well as Atratinus, held a command i n the war zone: here, already, are
13
two commanders. There is no evidence that Bibulus was there; a passage o f Appian
suggests that he was already i n the East late i n 36. Particularly significant i n this 14

1
F o r slightly earlier activity of Oppius in Sicily, 1 2
L e v i 11, p. 73 n. 2.
see p. 53. 1 3
Bahrfeldt's conjecture that Oppius was com-
2
Scramuzza, ES. i n , p. 308; Babelon, l.c. 11, mander-in-chief, leaving the squadrons to Bibulus
pp. 277,434; H o l m i n , p. 460; Gardthausen 1, p. 28. and Atratinus, is not supported by any evidence.
3
Appian, BC. v, 129. 1 4
BC. v, 132: 6 6£ (sc. Antony) KCCI BOpAov
4
Bahrfeldt, l.c. nos. 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 19. dnn6vTcc Trpos ocCnr6v (sc. Octavian) tinvx^v £81-
5 T a r n , CAH. x, p. 55. SCCOKE. Viereck, in ed. 2 of the Teubner text, does
6
Ibid. p. 66. 7
11, p. 36. not consider possible emendations, cited in ed. 1 by
8
Porphyrius, Fragmenta Historicorum Graec- Mendelssohn, to be worthy of mention. White, in
orum, i n , 724. 9; cf. T a r n , l.c. p. 81. the Loeb Text, translates 'Antony gave instructions
9
Not Julius, pace Eisner, MBNGW. v m , 1905, to Bibulus, who was going away from him, to con-
p« 43* fer with Octavian'; but A . S. F . G o w points out
1 0
Bahrfeldt, l . c p. 37. that this involves an unplausible translation o f
1 1
BMCR. 11, p. 507. 144. £8{8a(7k£, and considers the meaning obscure.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 45
connection is the fact that his issues are never so light i n weight as many w i t h the
1
signatures o f Oppius and Atratinus. Bahrfeldt's distinction o f two separate standards
is impossible to maintain owing to the very wide range o f fluctuations i n weight. O n
the other hand, i t was very common for the weights o f an issue gradually to decline.
I f the series is attributed to the time o f the Treaty i n 37, this phenomenon is perfectly
explicable. Oppius and Atratinus remained i n the West—as their coinage at Lipara,
Entella and Lilybaeum proves—and continued the present issue, which gradually
declined i n weight, but Bibulus sailed back to the East w i t h Antony, and his mintage
ceased. Thus too is explained the Eastern origin o f the few pieces whose provenance
has been noted: Antony and Bibulus took w i t h them at least 170 out of the 300 ships,
2 3

so that much o f the earlier part o f this coinage naturally found its way to the East with
the returning troops.
Thus many indications demonstrate that the issue commenced at the date o f the
Treaty o f Tarentum (spring 37), when Antony and Bibulus were i n the West. Sicily,
to which many have ascribed the group, was inaccessible at this time. Bahrfeldt's
4
suggestion that the series was struck on ship-board is unnecessary, since previous
issues have shown that the Italian harbour-towns were used as mints during the
triumvirate, even by Antony. The occasion is the conference at Tarentum, and Tarentum
was the headquarters o f the Antonian contingent:* the coinage may be attributed to
6
that colony.
The denominations, specified by value-marks, range from sextans* to sestertius.
7

0
The novelty o f this wide upward range, made necessary by the rise o f prices, is
paralleled b y a hew debasement to an as whose upper limit is only J oz., and which 10

fluctuates extravagantly, i n the later issues o f Oppius and Atratinus, to less than half
that weight." Antony then freely admits a token standard," funeste doctrine, fille du
despotisme; * and Pliny informs us that he debased the silver also.
1 14

This series, or the circumstances which had inspired it, led other authorities to issue
bronze coinage o f an equally unusual character.

However, he agrees that it does not warrant the 6

Kornemann, 28.
interpretation (by Bahrfeldt, l.c.) that Antony, in 7
Cf. Vittinghoff, l.c, pace Dattari, R.it. 1908,
the East, gave these instructions to Bibulus in Sicily. p. 547-
drndvTa implies rather that Bibulus was on the point 8
Cf. Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 514.
of leaving Antony; SvruxeTv may be Consecutive. 9 Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xlvi f:
1
Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xlvi n. 2. 1 0
Sydenham, NC. 1918, pp. 172 ff., points out
2
Bahrfeldt, l.o; cf. Edwards, Corinth, vi, 1933, Grueber's mistakes in this respect.
p. 75 J Woodward, Transactions of the International " Cf. Burns, Money and Monetary Policy in
Numismatic Congress (1936), p. 128. Omitted, e.g., Ancient Times, p. 301.
by Willers, Geschichte, p. 125. 12
Cf. Milne, Development of Roman Coinage, p. 21.
3
Levi 11, p. 69; cf. n. 3. 1 3
Lenormant, LamonnaiedansVantiquiti, in, p. 29.
4
Cf. also Vittinghoff, PW. (2R.), vi, 2298 in 1 4
NH. xxxni, 132; cf. Mommsen, Berichte iiber
oder um Si^ilien. die Verhandbmgen der k. sacks. Ges. der Wissen-
5
Appian, BC. v, 129. schaften \u Leipzig, ph.-k. Kl. in, 1851, p. 219.
46 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49—28 B.C.

5. PUTEOLI(?)

1 2
A n extraordinary coin, accepted as genuine by Mattingly and Bahrfeldt, has on the
obverse the legend M . A G R I P P A O R A E CLAS. P R A E . C , with Agrippa's
bare head to left, and on the reverse CAESAR I I I V I R R. P. C , w i t h triskeles and
gorgoneion* (Pi. I , 13). By analogy w i t h denarii o f Sex. Pompeius, Agrippa's naval4

title can be restored as Orae maritimae et classis praefectus. The final C most naturally,
though not certainly, refers to his consulship o f 37:5 i n any case, the type not only
shows a general connection w i t h the Sicilian campaigns, but i n particular recalls the
'Fleet' issues o f Antony, which have been attributed to the months following the
Treaty o f Tarentum (spring 37). Mattingly ascribes the present coin to the months
preceding the treaty; but i t can be shown that only a date subsequent to this is suitable
to Agrippa's title, and that the same date is equally relevant to Octavian's.
The exceptional glorification o f the self-effacing Agrippa is likely to commemorate
6
some unusual distinction. D i o states that i n this year he succeeded Calvisius Sabinus
in the office o f high admiral—which is explicitly recorded on the coin—and Appian?
8
clearly connects this appointment w i t h events later than the Treaty o f Tarentum. I t is
therefore hard to see how the title could have appeared on coinage before the Treaty.
A terminus ante quern is provided by the legend CAESAR I I I V I R R. P. C , which
0
bears on a controversy concerning the renewal o f the triumvirate. I t has been rightly
noted that Octavian, unlike Antony, invariably places I T E R V M on his coins during
the second quinquennium (37-32). However, this prolongation was not confirmed by
10

law until some months after the informal agreement at Tarentum," and, i n the mean-
while, the triumvirs continued their administration (as, during the first months o f 37,
between the finish o f the Lex Titia and the new agreement) ' o n the ground that
12
their powers could not lapse until they formally laid them d o w n ' . Thus the present
usage could be considered technically correct if, as is on other grounds probable,
the issue was made between the Treaty and the date o f its confirmation by law
(summer 37).
The circumstances o f the issue suggest a geographical attribution. A second
specimen is reported, though not w i t h certainty, from a collection at Acireale i n

1
NC. 1934, p. 48. 9 Summarised (most recendy) by Charlesworth,
2
Numismatisches Litcraturblatt, 1934, p. 2781. l . c and p. 904; L e v i 1, pp. 71 f. n. 2.
3 BM. Charlesworth, l.c. p. 59 n. 1.
1 0

4
BMCR. 11, pp. 560ff.,7 ff. C f . Wilcken, SB. Berlin, 1925, pp. 70 f.;
1 1

5
Mattingly, l.c. Glauning, Die Anhdngerschaft des Antonius und des
6
X L V I I I , 49. Octavian, p. 49.
7 BC. v, 96. Charlesworth, I.e.; cf. L e v i , Rivista difilologia,
1 2

8
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 59, correcting 1938, p. 115; Syme, RR. p. 225. T h i s is the point
Gardthausen 1, p. 25; Hadas, Sextus Pompey, p. 122, of the distinction between Appian, BC. v, 95, and
etc. Rom. Hist, x, 28.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 47
Sicily. Furthermore, the first example (which weighs 424-4 grains) is so exceedingly
1

2
thick that its reputed resemblance to coins o f Caralis is slight i n comparison w i t h its
similarity to Sicilian issues o f the fourth century B.C., on one o f which i t must have
been overstruck.3 But the piece cannot be Sicilian, since both legends and analogies
eliminate the possibility o f a date after 37: as on the Tarentine coinage, the triskeles
must refer to the campaign, rather than to the mintage. The overstriking suggests a
town within easy reach o f the island—and our specimen comes from an Italian collec-
4
tion. The unique emphasis on Agrippa makes attribution to his naval headquarters
exceptionally probable. I t is therefore significant that his appointment was at once
signalised by a grandiose scheme o f harbour construction, and a concentration o f
forces, at Puteoli.5 Previous sections have provided precedents for mintage at
military ports, and i t is difficult to resist the conclusion that this coin, celebrating the
6
high admiral's appointment, was struck at his new headquarters at that colony.
This unorthodox issue was similar to the * Fleet' coinage o f Antony i n type and i n
the circumstances which prompted it, but not i n its circulation, which must have been
exceedingly small; the expedient o f overstriking suggests that the technical departments
o f the mint were rudimentary. There is, however, reason to believe that i t was the
inauguratory issue o f a naval mint which fulfilled the same needs for Octavian as
Tarentum (?) for Antony.

There are comparatively common bronze coins w i t h D I V I F. (head o f Octavian to

8
right) and D I V O S I V L I V S ( i n wreath).7 These are sometimes found i n the south and
0
east o f Gaul; but Goudard's attribution to Nimes is based on wholly fallacious
reasoning (p. 122), and their delicate yet somewhat unattractive workmanship differs
10

greatly from the rough style o f the official issues o f Arelate(?) (p. 41). Even greater
is their dissimilarity to contemporary colonial coinage at Lugdunum, and Syden-
ham's attribution to that m i n t " is unacceptable. Finds also are reported from
12
Sardinia, and probably occur i n Africa; ^ provenance does not support attribu-
14 15
tion to Spain. They occur particularly often i n Italy. The fact that Campania is
1
Bahrfeldt, l.o: Pennisi di Floristella coll. 9 E.g. Neuss (Strack, BJ. cxn, 1904, p. 452).
* Mattingly, l.c. 1 0
He is followed by Lacroix, Les midailles de
3
Ibid. L . A. Lawrence also holds this view. Nimes au pied de sanglier, p. 8.
4
Larizza coll. (Santamaria sale 1928, 26).
1 1
NC. 1917, l.c. no. 20.
5 Dio X L V I I I , 50; cf. Charlesworth, l.c. p. 58.
1 2
Spano, Bullettino archeologico sardo, iv, 1858,
6
Kornemann 14. p. 199.
7
BMCR. in, p. 413.108 ff. Analysed NC. 1904,
1 3
Constantine mus.; Hinglais, Recueil de la Soc.
p. 244; see below, p. 89, for errors in this respect arch, du dip. de Constantine, xxxvill, 1904, p. 21.
The erratic striking makes it probable that a single
1 4
de Saulcy, Mimoires de la sociiti francaise de
denomination was intended, rather than four or two numismatique et d'archiologie, 1873, p. 26; pace Milan
(Sydenham, NC. 1917, pp. 53 fF.; cf. M. & S. p. 43 Cat. p. 12.131-3; LafFranchi, Rit. 1912, p. 170.
n. 1). 1 5
Many in trade at Milan and in Rome; noticeably
8
E.g. Sillingy (Boutkowski, DN. 1, p. 75), Nimes; more in all Italian museums than in those of other
cf. Eckhel, DN. vi, p. 138. countries.
4 8 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
1
especially productive o f them recalls the attribution o f the coin last discussed to
Puteoli.
Chronological indications suggest a further connection w i t h that piece. Laffranchi's
ascription to c. 20 B . C . is entirely groundless. Sydenham establishes a terminus ante
2 3

quern o f 29 B.C., Bahrfeldt narrows the limits to c. 39-38 B.C., and Grueber5 prefers
4

c. 38. Analogies o f legend and style can be combined w i t h historical considerations

to show a probable occasion o f issue. A n upper limit is provided by two groups o f
denarii o f c. 39-38: the portraits o f the one group are closely imitated on some
5 6

specimens o f the aes, and the other displays the same otherwise unparalleled titulature
7 8

D I V I F. Confirmation o f these comparisons is provided by a third series o f denarii*

whose reverse plan shows a considerable technical similarity w i t h the aes issues: i n this
case the titulature is i n the form I M P . CAESAR D I V I F., COS. I T E R . E T T E R .
D E S I G . I t is significant that these further resemble our aes i n their lack o f the trium-
viral title. By way o f contrast, the immediate predecessors and successors o f the
denarii respectively bear the legends: IMP. CAESAR D I V I F. I I I V I R . R. P. C . ; IMP. 10

CAESAR D I V I F. I I I V I R . ITER. R. P. C. COS. I T E R . E T T E R T . D E S I G . " I t

has been pointed out (p. 46) that there were intervals between the expiration o f the
Lex Titia (December 38) and the decisions at Tarentum (spring 37), and between the
latter and the formal ratification o f the new quinquennium (summer 37). The omission
of the triumviral title on our third series o f denarii indicates attribution to one o f those
intervals, when the new appellation IMPferator) was given a serious trial (p. 415).
During the second o f these intervals—as later—Antony quoted his triumviral rank
without the addition o f iterum, and Agrippa's 'Fleet* coin has borne witness to the
same practice—during this interval only—by Octavian. I t is unlikely that, i f the last-
named had already abandoned the triumviral title i n January 37, he would have per-
mitted its reintroduction without iteration—as on the aes o f Agrippa—in the second
interval; this is especially improbable i n view o f his subsequent emphasis on iterum.
Our three series o f denarii lacking the title cannot, therefore, be placed i n the first
interval, and must have been struck i n the second—between the agreement and its
formal ratification. The second o f the denarius groups has D I V I F. alone: and the
aes, w i t h the same titulature, is likely to belong to the same period o f constitutional
suspense. Moreover, this must follow, rather than precede, t h e ' Fleet' coin o f Agrippa
which has not yet abandoned the titulature o f the first quinquennium. I t can therefore
be approximately attributed to the summer o f 37. The coin o f Agrippa was probably

1
Many in Naples mus.; a number found at 6
Especially Cahnsale71.1445 (Frankfurt, 1931).
Salerno, including imitations (some acquired by the 7
E.g. Ars Classica sale 13.1116 (Geneva, 1928);
writer in Naples). Cahn sale 68.156.
L.c 3
3 NC. 1917, l.c 8
BMCR. 11, p. 410.100.
NZ. 1918, p. 105; cf. Weickert, Die Antike,
4
9 Ibid. p. 415. 115.
1938, p. 211. " Ibid. p. 414- 114.
5 BMCR. 11, pp. 412 f. " Berlin, ibid. p. 415.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 49
struck at Puteoli, and that provenance suggests that the present aes coinage should be
assigned to the same mint. The former was a makeshift inauguratory issue as a pre-
liminary to the production o f this extensive coinage. The attribution to a military port
is supported by precedents at Brundusium(?), Zacynthus, Arelate(?) and Tarentum (?),
and b y the great activity o f Octavian and Agrippa at this very time i n shipbuilding and
1
the training o f crews.
A n issue w i t h D I V O S I V L I V S and C A E S A J l D I V I F. and their heads* (Pi. 1,14)
bears such a close resemblance to the last series that i t must belong to the same mint,
and may well have been engraved by the same hand.3 Although i t was imitated i n
4 6 7 8
Sicily, Sardinia,* G a u l and Spain, and is found rarely as far as Germany, this, like
0
the other, occurs particularly often i n Italy. N o attempt has hitherto been made to
distinguish i t i n date from the issue just described—from which, indeed, i t cannot be
far removed. The legend C A E S A R D I V I F. follows plain D I V I F. on the aes as on
10

denarii, 11
and i t is natural to suppose that, just as D I V I F. occurs at the same date i n
12
both metals, so does C A E S A R D I V I F . But, contrary to the current view, there are
many reasons for believing that the earliest denarii w i t h the latter inscription (namely,
those without a portrait o f Octavian) are not as late as c. 3 i , or even as 36. The aes.
1 3 14

1
Dio X L V I I I , 49. 2; cf. Ganter, p. 11. 1 0
The occasional appearance of a beard is
2
BMCR. 11, p. 412.105. Many hybrids occur anachronistic. Cf. also p. 74.
(Sydenham, NC. 1917, 21). BMC. Imp. Aug. 590 ff.
1 1

1 2
3
A Milan piece of divergent style (Sacchi, This conclusion is confirmed by their isolation
Historic, ix, 1935, p. 485; Milan Cat. p. 12.122) is among coins and inscriptions with the praenomen
false. An identical forgery has been shown me by imperatoris: see below, p. 417.
a dealer, and another figured in the collections As Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxx; cf. n. 3.
1 3

of Bachofen von Echt (sale 1903.667) and Faure As Grueber, BMCR 11, p. 8. De Salis pre-
1 4

(sale 1923.14). ferred c. 39 as a starting-point, and in support of

4
In trade, Rome. his view there are three categories of evidence:
5
Hybrid in style of Atius Balbus (p. 150): in (1) Hoards. The Chantenay find contained one of
trade, London. these denarii with afigureof Mercury, BMC. Imp.
6
Strack, BJ. cxii, 1904, p. 452. Aug. 596, but no other coins later than c. 40-3 8 B.C.
7
Overstruck on as of Sex. Pompeius (Capito- (BMCR. in, p. 29). Additional arguments will
line, cf. Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1896, pp. 152 f.); portrait show that this does not warrant doubts of the hoard
imitated at Calagurris (Hill, pi. X X X V , 10) and (as Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. lxxvi). (2) Types. This
Tarraco (ibid. pi. IV, 16). Mercury type, which refers specially to the restora-
8
E.g. at Ohringen (Nesde, Funde, p. 79): but tion of commerce (Six, Rev. arch, iv, 1916, pp.
none among many hundreds of coins collected in 247 ff.), is more apposite to theriddanceof Sextus
Bonn mus. than to Actium (cf. Cesano, QA. 111, p. 15). Venus
9
Italian museums and dealers' stocks are especi- Victrix(?) (BMC. Imp. Aug. 609) and Neptune
ally prolific (e.g. Milan Cat. 123-30), and the (ibid. 615) are ambiguous; however, it may be sig-
coins are rated as very common. Some found at nificant that the latter deity was honoured con-
Salerno, in own collection (acquired in Naples). spicuously by Octavian before Mylaeand Naulochus
The Gutteridge gift to Cambridge, of South Italian (Appian, BC. v, 96 and 98 respectively) whereas
provenance, includes three coins of this type, but there is curiously litde trace of his worship by the
no other contemporary aes. princeps after Actium (Gag£, Melanges d'archeologie
50 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

then, may be attributed to c. 37-36, and be considered a third issue o f the mint ascribed
to Puteoli. I t is i n accordance w i t h this conclusion that the last stages o f the Sicilian
war were accompanied b y extensive official currency from a more advanced base
(p. 52), so that all the issues from the present mint may be ascribed w i t h probability
to the year 37.
T w o further coinages o f exceptional interest bear witness to the feverish military
and naval preparations o f the same year.

6. A F R I C A ( C A R T H A G E ? )
One o f these ( P i . I I , 12) has suffered t w o entirely erroneous attributions. I t reads
1

D I V O S I V L I V S (diademed head o f Julius to left; Utuus) and D I C T A T O R PER

(galley w i t h sail; sidus Iulium). Sestini, w i t h his customary flair for litterae evanidae,
2

discovered the ethnic [ A C J H V L L A on an example k n o w n to h i m ; this may well be

the single specimen now extant, since oxidisation and portions o f the type give an
excuse, but no sort o f justification, for this hypothetical reading. The fiction has been
et d'histoire, m i , 1936, p. 85). Furthermore, in issues, which terminated apparently in about 37 B.C.
direct contrast to later- denarii with IMP. CAESAR Mattingly confirms that die exact date is quite
and the type of Octavian on a quadriga (BMC. Imp. uncertain, and that the whole group needs recon-
Aug. 617), referring to his triumph of 29,1s the sideration. One or two issues may even be post-
type of an empty quadriga (ibid. 590), which, as Actian (e.g. BMCR. 1, p. 571), but a cessation in
Mattingly (ibid. p. cxxii) infers from Cassiodorus about 37 is certain. Groag (PW. iv, 104 f.; cf.
(Chronica s. 19 B . C . ) , 'suggests a victory for which Mommsen, ZfN. 1887, pp. 202 ff.) has rightly
no formal triumph was celebrated'; thus it is in- eliminated C . Clodius Vestalis from the series. On
applicable to Actium, but peculiarly relevant to the the new series quattuorviri are no longer mentioned,
Illyrian successes of 35-34. (3) Style. A number of but senatorial feeling is characteristically respected
the CAESAR D I V I F . coins show Greek workman- by the omission of Octavian's portrait on the earliest
ship, which is even more noticeable on subsequent coins. This omission accounts for the lack of
official issues: but the group without the heads of parallels in other metals for the head of Octavian on
Octavian (with which the present series of aes is our aes, since it is contemporary with these denarii.
here held to be associated) lacks this refinement and The early date accounts for the beard on the former.
is comparable to earlier pieces of 'Italian' style. It is possible that the official mint at Puteoli (?),
Moreover, heads of Pax(?) (BMC. Imp. Aug. 611) which has already issued aes (and perhaps denarii}),
and Venus (?) (ibid. 609) show striking affinities now took over the functions of the * senatorial'
(especially in the ever-changing feature of coiffure) officials and produced the first of the silver with
with a Roman coin (BMCR. pi. LVTII, 5) con- CAESAR D I V I F . But Mattingly (BMC. Imp.
sidered by Mattingly (as he informs me) to be p. cxx n. 4) has established a strong probability that
no later than c. 42-39 B.C.; the denarius with Pax the mint had a period of 'travel' before it settled at
resembles the same series in having a beaded edge Asiatic cities after Actium. Between Naulochus and
rather than the line-edge of other denarii with the Actium it may well have been transferred to North
same legend (except the distinctive BMC. Imp. Aug. Italy to serve the Illyrian campaigns. Regling's re-
605 whose style suggests a separate mint—cf. Milan jection of such interpretations (Phil. Woch. 1924,
Cat. p. 45. 442). Thus stylistic considerations sup- pp. 364 ff.) is quite unwarranted in view of Lucan's
port the evidence of provenance and types, and express testimony to castrensis moneta (1, 380).
strongly suggest that the CAESAR D I V I F . coinage 1
Copenhagen.
was the immediate successor of the quattuorviral 2
Hedervar. in, cont. p. 79, no. 1, pi. X X X O , 14.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 51
1 2 3 4
copied from Sestini b y Werlhof, Mionnet, Boutkowski, and De Schodt. Another
error common to them all is that o f T E R [ T ] . for PER. on the reverse. A further
6
example is quoted from Borghesi and Riccio5 b y Muller as reading D . I V L I V S
8
(laureate head) and CAES, (galley). E. Babelon? cites i t too, and Cavedoni is wrong
0
(as the specimen here illustrated suggests) i n doubting its existence. Grueber is
cautious, but paradoxical, i n stating that it'is probably not ancient, and i n any case
barbarous; the extant piece again shows the incorrectness o f both these incompatible
10
suppositions. Muller attributes Riccio's piece, for no good reason, to I o l Caesarea.
Charrier" arbitrarily considers the legend to be C. I V L I V S and assigns the coin to
12
Juba. These hypotheses are useless, but Riccio's example at least enables the restoration
o f the legends: D I V O S I V L I V S — C A E S [ A R ] D I C T A T O R PERP. or PERPET.
The execution is o f the thirties B.C., and the galley on the reverse shows such kinship
w i t h the Tarentine (?) asses o f Atratinus (which our coin also resembles i n w e i g h t )
13 14

that i t is justifiable to assume a connection w i t h the Sicilian War o f 37-36.

However, differences o f style preclude attribution to the mint o f the principal' Fleet'
series. Muller, Charrier, and Sestini and his followers all agree that the fabric is African;
this is clearly corVect, and the patina o f the coin is o f a reddish b r o w n colour frequent
1
on African coins o f the period. * The responsible authority must therefore have been
16
Lepidus. His triumvirate was apparently renewed b y the Treaty o f Tarentum, since
he played a very prominent part i n the subsequent campaign, conducting a huge
17
armada to Sicily w i t h ambitions that extended far beyond co-operation. The mint is
likely to have been at his principal colony o f Carthage (pp. 227,231). This issue must be
almost contemporary w i t h the corresponding coin o f Agrippa, which was struck during
the preparations o f 37. The emphasis on Julius is significant, and its cause is not far to
seek: Lepidus had owed the precarious maintenance o f his position to his loyalty to
18 10
the Caesarian party, which had already, perhaps rightly, been called into question.
This issue exceeds those o f the other triumvirs i n piety to the common cause, at a "time
when Lepidus was preparing to vindicate his o w n private ambitions to the detriment
o f his colleagues: i t provides a very rare instance o f the propaganda w i t h which this
homo ventosissimus 20
forwarded his claims. This and the other programme 'Fleet'
coinages o f the triumvirs provoked the Pompeian Cn. Piso Frugi to imitation (p. 31).
1
Handbuch der grtechischen Numismatik (1850), E.g. Rome; Willers, Geschichte, pi. X , 11.
1 3

p. 261. * S. ix, 202.1. 3

DN. 1, p. 145. 143 grains.
1 4

4
Rb. 1887, p. 381. 5 E.g. munidpia of Zama Regia, Simitthu(?)
x

5 Monete difamiglie romarie, s.v. Julia, suppl., pi.(pp. 182, 178).

L V m , 19. 6
H I , p. 139.213. 7 n pp. _8.100.
f 47
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 59; cf. n. 1.
1 6

8
Numismatica Biblica, p. 126. 7 Ibid. p.. 59; cf. n. 1.
J

9 BMCR. 11, pp. 412 f. n. 2. H I , p. 139. 213.

1 0
Ibid. p. 26.
1 8

1 1
Description des monnaies de la Numidie et de Cf. Brueggemann, De Marci Aemili Lepidi vita
1 0

la Mauritanie, 407. et rebus gestis, Diss. Minister, 1887, pp. 52 f.

1 2
Following de la Blanchere, Bulletin de corre- D e c Brutus (ap. Cic. Fam. xi, 9. 1); cf. Syme,
2 0

spondance africaine, 1884, p. 470. RR. p. 166 n. 1.

52 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

7. LlPARA
A move o f Octavian's military mint southwards is announced by a variegated series
w i t h a curious and entirely homogeneous style: i t has neither been attributed nor
collected, since the coins are very rare, poorly preserved, and insignificant. But when
they are seen as a whole, i t is not difficult to deduce their time and place. Those w i t h
signatures fall into the following three groups:
I . ( i ) O P P I . (PL I , 15). (2) SEX. A N N . (3) P. C O R N E L L
1 2 3

I I . (4) L . A N N I . 4 (5) A N . (PL I , I2).5 (6) L . C A E . 6

I I I . (7) S T A T I . T R E B 0 7 [ N I ] . (8) I M P . ( P i . I I , 13).* (9) D . P O R ( ? ) .

8 10

(io)SACER." ( I I ) P . A L . ( P 1 . I , I ) . 7
1 2
(12) CAP. 1 3
(13) P. C A L P . 1 4
(i )M.AVFI.
4

X
SCAEVA. 5
The first o f these three groups is distinct i n types and i n weight—c. 85 grains,
nearly double that o f the rest. The other two, bridged b y (5), are separated b y a slight
16
evolution o f type arrangement. The representations on these coins are manifold: but
the curious persistence o f a single unusual type leads to a geographical attribution. A l l
issues i n Group I I are accompanied b y Vulcan: not only does his head appear, w i t h
tongs, on coins w i t h each o f the three signatures, but (5) shows his running figure.
1
This is identical w i t h a local type o f Lipara, ? on whose series Vulcan, significantly
18
absent i n Sicily, is regularly portrayed. N o less noteworthy is the recurrence o f his
head on (7) and of his running form on (9): both types are also found on pieces without
1
a legend. * Since these associations w i t h Lipara are unavoidable, the persistence o f a
highly individual style makes i t inevitable that the whole series, whose uniformity
escaped Bahrfeldt, should be assigned to this mint—to which only a single piece among
20
all these issues has hitherto been attributed.
1
Bahrfeldt, RS. 1904, p. 408. 58, 61 (BMC. 1 2
Unpublished (Copenhagen—attributed to Pae-
Sicily, p. 127. 10, var. Vienna). stum).
2
Ibid. p. 414.62 (Glasgow). Bahrfeldt, L c p. 411; Imhoof-Blumer, MG.
1 3

3
Ibid. p. 418. 69 (Berlin). p. 36. 84.
4
Ibid. p. 416.64 (Basel). P. ANNI. (ibid. 65,66) 1 4
Not in Bahrfeldt, L c Misread by Boissevain,
(Berlin) is very doubtful. Amsterdam Cat. p. 222. 6 (now at Hague).
5 Ibid. p. 417. 68 (Paris), p. 434. 87 (Berlin). 5 Not in Bahrfeldt, L c Babelon, Monnaies de la
x

Wrongly attributed to Zacynthus by Gardner, ripublique romaine, 1, p. 234 (Capitoline); cf. Klebs,
BMC. Pelopormese, p. 102.90. PW. 11, 2296 (37).
6
Bahrfeldt, Lc. p. 417.67 (Basel). 1 6
E.g. Janus, Jupiter, Mercury, Hercules, Cupid,
7 Id. NZ. 1918, p. 169 (Paris). Bacchus, Medusa, Victory, centaur, elephant, pig,
8
Ibid. (Capitoline). panther, Ulysses (?), etc
9 Unpublished (Turin). BMC. Sicily, p. 263.79 (etc.).
1 7

1 0
Bahrfeldt, RS. 1904, p. 435 (Berlin). Cf. Cesano, R.it. xxx, 1917, pp. 11 fF.
1 8

11
Misread, ibid. p. 433. 86. Cesano, Fascicolo- 9 Bahrfeldt, L c p. 442. 104 (Gotha), and un-
X

omaggioperilprimo Centenario del Gabinetto diBrera; published (Berlin), respectively.

cf. Rassegna numismatka, V I , 1909, p. 15 (Rome). By Babelon, l.c 1, p. 244. 21.
2 0
 THE TRIUMVIRS 53
Lipara was a naval station o f Octavian and a municipium from 37 B.C. (p. 195): i t was
1

one o f the principal bases for the campaigns o f 36. A number o f extraordinary over-
struck pieces (Pi. I , 16), and the careless striking o f small flans on large dies on (7),
2

(10) and unsigned coins^—in both cases the type is often Vulcan—strongly suggest
that part o f the series at least was a product o f the war emergency. The signatories o f
(1) and (7) confirm that the coinage should be assigned to this occasion. O P P I . must
be M . Oppius Capito, who coined at Tarentum i n 37 and then fought i n the Sicilian
War (p. 45). S T A T I . , o f (7), is referred b y Grueber to Murcus, whose gentilicium,
4

however, was not Statius but Staius.5 S T A T I . T R E B O N I . is likely to represent two

names, not one, owing to the absence o f a praenomen: by the analogy o f Oppius i t is
probable that the former o f the t w o persons thus named is another commander. He
may therefore confidendy be identified w i t h T . Statilius Taurus, the Lucanian novus
homo, who played a prominent part i n the campaign o f 36? and was then Octavian's
6

8 0
first governor o f Sicily. Trebonifus], who is unidentifiable, is likely to be his quaestor,
coining w i t h the counter-signature o f his commander i n accordance w i t h Republican
precedent. Some o f these pieces have a quadriga identical w i t h one on (14). This has
10

the legend I M P . and a remarkable head w i t h heavy features which are not those o f a
triumvir (Pi. I I , 13): Statilius Taurus was saluted imperator after Naulochus, and this 11

may well be his title and portrait. CAP., whose coins are overstruck on those o f
Oppius," confirms the view that the issues persisted for some little time. A further
chronological indication may perhaps be jlerived from pieces o f the same distinctive
1
style without a legend: these have the type o f an elephant's head, * which is likely to
refer either to Lepidus's African forces i n Sicily or to Octavian's subsequent occupation
o f Africa.
Thus all detectable signs refer to the years 37-36 and to the circumstances o f the
t

war for which Lipara was an important base. Statilius ( i f i t is he whose portrait appears)
was not imperator until after Naulochus: the concentration o f enormous forces i n
14
north-eastern Sicily, just opposite Lipara, provides a reason for the continuation o f
the issues for a short time after the war. Thus the officers here named probably repre-
sent a period o f a year or t w o , but not more. Lipara was a Roman community, and a
convenient base for a mint to supply payment for a large force; many technical freaks
bear witness to the rapidity o f mintage which the huge numbers o f the soldiery
1
Orsi, Nouye degli Scavi, v , 1929, pp. 98 f. Orosius VI, 18. 32.
8

* Berlin. 9
Caesar's legatus seems to have left no close
3
Bahrfeldt, L a p. 435. relations ( C i c Fam. xn, 164).
4
BMCR. 11, p. 485 n. 2. 1 0
Cf. Longperier, Recherches sur les insignes de la
5
Bull. deW inst. di corr. arch. 1879, p. 224; cf. questure, p. 6.
Wochenschrifijurklassische Philologie, xxxill, 1916, Cf. Stein, PW. (2/?.), in, 2200.
1 1

pp. 791 f.; Kloevekorn, De proscriptionibus a tribus Bahrfeldt, RS. L c p. 411; cf. Imhoof-Blumer,
1 2

virisfactis, Diss. Konigsberg, 1891, p. 55. MG. p. 36. 84.

6
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 237. 1 3
BM ('uncertain'); unpublished.
7 Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, pp. 59 f. 1 4
Cf. Charlesworth, Lc. p. 63.
54 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

necessitated. The signatories o f the coinage, w i t h the exception o f Oppius and

Statilius, do not assist a closer attribution. L . C A E . may tentatively be identified w i t h
the Volaterran L . Caecina L.f., who was tribune, praetor and proconsul during the last
1 2
years o f the Republic: he or a kinsman was a confidential ambassador o f Octavian.
P. Cornelius is likely to be either the P. Scipio who was consulsuffectus i n 35 or the s

4
P. Dolabella (at one time praetor) who was one o f Octavian's younger supporters.
The other names—all unknown—reveal the inadequacy o f our prosopographical
knowledge o f the period, and the effectiveness o f the coins i n adding to existing lists.
SACER(<&w) was perhaps a kinsman o f the Carsidius who became praetor urbanus i n
A.D. 27,5 or o f Licinius Sacerdos who had held the praetorship i n 75 B . C . P. A L . is 6

just conceivably P. Alfenus Varus jun., the consul o f A . D . 2.7 P. CALPurnii and
CALPetani are excessively rare, and no suitable one can be found. SEX. ANNius was
8 0
possibly a Celer or a Gallus, since these combinations occur. The partisanship o f the
A n n i i is strongly indicated b y (2), (4), and (5), but Augustan Fasti do not suggest that i t
gained them much preferment—it was nearly half a century before an Annius Pollio
10
became k n o w n . C A P . is unidentifiable, and there are no signs o f a suitable Dec.
POR(cius) who, i f not o f freedman stock, is the last k n o w n member o f his family."
M . S C A E V A , whether A V F I ( d i u s ) or n o t , " provides an unusual combination o f
nomen and cognomen. * The lofty dignitas o f Oppius and Statilius makes i t clear that
1

this, like Sextus's rival establishments, was no regular quaestorian mint: probably the
unknown names are mostly those o f legionary commanders. These issues provide the
basis, but not the material, for an extended prosopography o f the triumvirate.

8. A G R I G E N T U M (?)

A curious litde coin w i t h a head o f Octavian, and a palm-branch and club inscribed
V I C T O R I A (PL I I , 14), is stylistically distinct from the Liparitan group, and o f
14

Sicilian style. The club suggests a connection w i t h Sextus's issues at Agrigentum (p. 28),
and this piece, although differing somewhat from those i n style, is likely to have been
a final issue o f the same mint after Octavian's occupation. N o further Agrigentine

PIR*. 11, 17. 96; cf. Schulze, p. 75.

1
of this family (cf. ibid. 73) was a C . Annius,
* Cic. Att. xvi, 82. IVvir.a.a.a.f.f. in c. 9 B.C. (Mattingly, BMC. Imp.
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 244.
3
p. xcvii).
PIR*. 13. 45. For other Cornelii in his service
4 1 1
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 492.
vide Syme, RR. p. 235 n. 6. 1 2
Possibly Auficius, Aufidatorius, Aufidenus,
Cf. Groag, PW. 111, 1615.
5
Aufidienus, Aufillenus, Aufillius, Aufinddius, Au-
Cic. Verr. 1, 27. 104; cf. Munzer, PW. xm,
6
fitius, AuHus: cf. Schulze, pp. 203, 348, 203, 203,
458. 114, 114, 202, 203, 202 respectively.
7 PIR*. 1, 89. 523. 1 3
For the Aufidii vide Schulze, p. 203; for their
Cf. CIL. vi, 2263.
8
Eastern business interests vide Hatzfeld, BCH.
Ibid, xi, 1953.
9
xxxvi, 1912, p. 19.
1 0
Von Rohden, PW. 1, 2277 (71-2). Perhaps 1 4
Glasgow (Hu. H I , p. 734.24).
 THE TRIUMVIRS 55
official issues can be traced, but the city struck a few municipal coins subsequently
(p. 191). The present piece appears to be unique, and its legend too is unique at this
period: i n the Aeneid* Victory is still hovering on the border-line between poetical
2
personification and deity.
9. CNOSSUS(?)

E. S. G . Robinson has identified a Cretan mint, which struck a Latin dupondius and as
w i t h the name C R A S ( ^ ) . The former shows a prow and a crocodile, and the latter
head o f Apollo and fasces.* These are found i n Crete, and the curious prow on the
4

higher denomination is precisely similar to one on a tetradrachm o f Gortyna.5 The

issue o f Crassus may, therefore, be ascribed to the same island.
Chronological limits can be derived from the type o f a crocodile, which refers
to the nominal rule o f the Ptolemaic house (c. 37-31). Robinson attributes i t i n
6
particular to Cleopatra Selene: but D i o ' s explicit account, which records the Donation
to her o f Cyrenaica i n 34,7 does not include Crete among her possessions. The re- 8

ference is rather to her mother Cleopatra, who, as Dio 9 informs us i n an earlier

passage, possessed Kpf|TT|s TIVCC—that is, probably the whole island except for the pro-
posed colony at Cnossus (p. 261) —in 37-34." I t is entirely i n accordance w i t h this
10

view that the name o f Crassus appears also on coins o f Cyrenaica (p. 57): Cleopatra
was granted that territory also i n 37 (p. 58), and so there was, i n 37-34, a reason for
the identity o f its governor w i t h that o f Crete such as existed neither before nor after
that period. Before i t , since the brief interlude o f P. Lepidus under Brutus (p. 35),
Crete was libera et immunise after i t , the two territories were separated. Conclusive
17,

in favour o f the attribution o f the coins to the administration o f Cleopatra i n 37-34

rather than to the following years is a piece showing that a rigime of quite a different kind
existed i n 34-31, between the date o f this issue and the reversion o f Crete to a province
13
after A c t i u m . This was the government o f a Cretarch Cydas, one o f whose bronze
pieces is found overstruck on a dupondius o f Crassus. * Cydas has hitherto been
14 x

16
tentatively ascribed to the period before or soon after P h i l i p p i : but here is proof that
he was later than Crassus. Here too is a revelation o f the lost history o f Crete between
34 and 31. When Cyrenaica passed to Selene i n 34, the island also passed from the
Romano-Egyptian administration of her mother and Crassus, and continued its career,
I
xii, 187. Cf. Stossl, PW. xix, 1055.
2
Cic. 77 Phil. 38. 97; cf. Romanelli, CAH. xi,
1 2

3
BMC. Cyrenaica,?. 119. For illustrations, ibid. p. 659; Syme, RR. p. 272; not merely immunis, as
pi. X L I I , 8, 9. ^ Ibid. p. ccix n. 1.
4
Ker, ad be.
X L I X , 41.5. Cf. RG. 27.
5 6 1 3
Ibid. p. cexxi.
7
Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 80; Dobi£§, Melanges 1 4
Provenance assured by finds, e.g. Halbherr,
Bidei, 934> P- ^7*
I 2
Museo italiano di antichita classica, I I , 1888, p. 766.
8
Pace Shipley, Res Gestae (Loeb ed.), p. 393 n. 1. 1 5
BM; E . S. G . Robinson has pointed this out
9 X L I X , 32. 5. to me.
1 0
Id. X L I X , 14; cf. Strabo x, 478. Paribeni, Diiionario epigrafico, 11,2.165; Raven,
1 6

I I
For the date, vide Tarn, l.c. p. 67. NC. 1938, p. 146.
56 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

started b y Antony nine years earlier, o f Greek libertas et immunitas—autonomy under

a Cretarch. Cydas, who alone o f a number o f Greek coining officials strikes a silver
1
piece, and on i t exceptionally writes KPHTAIEOON, was similar i n power, i f not i n title,
to Cleopatra's governors o f Cyprus, Demetrius and Serapion.* The annals o f the
island during the triumvirate now begin to take shape.
Crassus, then, must have been in the island between 37 and 34. A l l proposed chrono-
logies are therefore unacceptable.* Robinson accepts Svoronos's identification w i t h
4
P. Canidius Crassus; but this is fraught w i t h insuperable difficulties. The literary
authorities account for his movements during these years i n such a way as to leave no
room for a governorship, or official post, i n Crete and Cyrenaica. He was i n Armenia,
Iberia and Parthia i n 37-36,5 and again i n the Armenian campaign o f 34; he had the 6

difficult task o f effecting the retreat after the disasters o f 36,7 and—since he retained his
command—was i n charge o f the reorganisation preceding the later campaign. Thus he
could have held no regular governorship from May to May i n any part o f this period,
and was, indeed, so preoccupied w i t h more important concerns that i t is difficult to
see how he could have had any connection w i t h Crete and Cyrenaica, and the present
issue. There was, however, another distinguished Crassus who joined Antony's camp
before c. 36, M . Licinius. His official career under the triumvir is unknown except
8 0

10
for a possible proconsulship o f Bithynia-Pontus. But, when he went over to Octavian
in c. 31," his experience was deemed sufficient for a consulship and proconsulship,
though he had never been praetor." I t is difficult to resist the conclusion that he was
the Crassus who was present i n Crete i n c. 37-34 B.C. A closer definition o f his office
w i l l be attempted i n the next section.
A second Latin series was struck b y a similar official, L . Lollius. Heads o f Diana
and o f a youthful male deity 3 are accompanied b y types o f sella curulis * and stag *
x 1 1

16
respectively; a smaller piece has a club and laurel-wreath. The moneyer is con-
1
Svoronos, Crete, p. 334; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, 8
Cf. Glaunifig, Die Anhangerschaft des Antonius
MG. p. 210. 1 (Naples, Paris). His predecessors und des Octavian (Diss. Leipzig, 1935), pp. 13, 16;
often inscribe their coins KN[(02ICON] (Svoronos, Syme, RR. pp. 269, 296.
l.c. pp. 82, 85): the office of Cretarch probably 0
Dio L I , 4. 3; cf. PIR. 11, 275.126.
evolved from a Cnossian magistracy which ceased 1 0
C\m\z,Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Inst, xxv, 1929,
to exist, or, at any rate, to be important, when p. 79, conjectures that a L . Licinius from Sebasto-
Cnossus became a colony in c. 36 B.C. (p. 261). polis in the Koptos inscription (Mommsen, Ephe-
2
Appian, BC. iv, 61. 9; cf. Syme, Anatolian metis Epigraphica, v, pp. 5 ff.) derived his nomen
Studies to Buckler, p. 324 n. 5. from M. Crassus. In this case the latter could have
3
E.g. of Stahelin, PW. xi, 776, Gardthausen, succeeded Cn. Ahenobarbus in the governorship of
NZ. X L I X , 1916, pp. 153ff.(after Actium); Robin- Bithynia-Pontus at some date after 35 (Appian, BC.
son, BMC. Cyrenaica, l.c (just before Actium). v, 137).
4 Ll.cc.
1 1
Dio, l.c; cf. Groag, PW. X I I I , 271.
5 Plut. Ant. 34. 3; Dio X L I X , 24. 1; cf. Levi 11, 1 2
Dio, l.c
p. 120. 1 3
For discussion vide Robinson, l.c. pp. ccxiv f.
6
Plut. Ant. 42.3. 1 4
Ibid. p. 114.3- X 5
Ibid. 4 ff.
7 Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 75. 1 6
Ibid. 16 his ff.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 57
jecturally identified b y E. S. G. Robinson w i t h Palikanus, IHvir a.a.a.ff. i n c. 47 B . C . 1

Like Crassus, he too is recorded on Greek issues, and b y analogy the two groups have
been assigned to Crete and Cyrenaica respectively.* But the evidence o f provenance
adds complexity: his Greek coins are found i n considerable numbers i n Crete,* and the
4
Latin group, though represented there, also appears extensively i n Cyrenaica.5 The
possibility must therefore be admitted—as the style does not exclude it—that the two
categories were struck at a single mint and then distributed: but certainty is not ob-
tainable.
The occasions o f both these series can, however, be deduced w i t h probability from
the certain Cretan origin o f the issue o f Crassus. Far the most important event i n the
history o f the island during the years 37-34 B.C. was the establishment o f a colony at
Cnossus i n c. 36 (p. 261). W e may assume w i t h some plausibility that the coinage o f
Crassus commemorated this deductio, and thus followed i n the tradition o f the Roman
officials C. Clovius and Q . Hortensius (pp. 7, 33)—who likewise struck money to
inaugurate new foundations—and i n that o f numerous colonies and municipia whose
issues served the same purpose (p. 290). Furthermore, this interpretation explains the
isolated appearance o f our t w o signatures: i t w i l l be shown elsewhere that the funds
devoted to the establishment o f a colony regularly enabled the inauguratory coinage
to be followed by a second (p. 291). From this fund was probably derived the Latin
issue o f Lollius. I t has already been noted that such 'foundation' series are no less the
product o f the autocrat's imperium maius than are all the contemporary coinages which
supply some more direct military need.

10,11. C Y R E N E AND PTOLEMAIS

I n Cyrenaica, Lollius and Crassus employed different monetary methods. The former
issued a coinage (probably at Cyrene) without any ethnic or mint-mark, inscribed
AOAAIOY, w i t h additional" privy-marks " ; the types include heads of A m m o n , Apollo,
Libya, and (reverses) sella curulis, dromedary,? caduceus w i t h poppy and corn-ear,
6 8

respectively. Crassus, however, acted i n co-operation w i t h the local authorities o f

0 10
Cyrene and Ptolemais:
0
KPA. head o f Libya r.—KY[PA.] silphium.
10
KPA[Z?.] crocodile—TTTOAEMAI. turreted head o f Tyche r .
1
Ibid. p. ccxvi; cf. Grueber, BMCR. 1, p. 518 n. 5 Sestini, Fontana, 1, pp. 124 ff.; cf. Robinson, l.c
For the banking interests of the Lollii in the East, BMC. Cyrenaica, 19 f.
6

vide Herzog, PW. xvir, 1442. Ibid. 21 ff.

7

* Robinson, l.c 8
Ibid. p. ccvi, 23 c, b; Berlin, Paris. For illustra-
3
Ibid. p. ccix n. 1. tions of these coins, ibid. pi. X L I f.
4
Cf. Halbherr, Museo italiano di antichita 0
Ibid. 26; cf. Hu. m, p. 571. 29, Leningrad.
classica, n, 1888, p. 765. Vienna =BMC. Cyrenaica, p. ccvi, 25 bis (a).
1 0
58 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

These issues are on the border-line between official and local coins. Those o f Lollius
belong to the former category: since his name appears i n Greek, they perhaps have the
character o f a truly provincial currency (p. 119)—that is, an official substitute for local
issues such as those sponsored b y Crassus—rather than o f a military or 'foundation'
coinage like the others o f the epoch.
I t has been pointed out that the union o f Crete and Cyrenaica under the rule o f
Lollius and Crassus can be justified by no circumstances other than those o f coalescence
in the realm o f Cleopatra from 37 to 34. This view is corroborated b y the remarkable
omission by both these officers, on all their issues, o f any Roman titulature. This
feature would have been entirely exceptional and incorrect i n a regular province, but
it was understandable, i f not essential, i n royal territory. The issues provide an ex-
cellent commentary on the anomalous situation created b y the Donations. The Roman
provincial government was not, indeed, superseded, as the fasces on Crassus's Latin
1

2
issue indicate: Crete and Cyrene did not yet fall into the same category as Cyprus,
3 4
a gift to Cleopatra by Julius, where purely regal coins were minted and Greeks were
governors (p. 56). O n the other hand, the administrations had lost their formal consti-
tutional character, and were mere survivals, permitted from motives o f strategy and
convenience, i n peregrine territory. The Donations were sufficiently real to warrant
6
administrative and numismatic union,5 the use o f a Ptolemaic type by Crassus, and
the suppression o f Roman titles. Later, however, during the crisis preceding Actium,
this aspect o f Antony's rule must have receded into the background (p. 370): L .
Pinarius Scarpus, an officer i n Cyrenaica—now part o f the dominions o f the reine
faineante Cleopatra Selene—inscribes his own title I M P E R A T O R on his coins, and
mentions Antony to the exclusion o f the women.? Since Antony gives place to
8
Octavian on these pieces, Scarpus is identifiable w i t h the commander mentioned by
10
Plutarch9 after A c t i u m : KOCI TTJV §v AipOrj 80vccuiv 6 uerncrrevuevos cVir^orrjcrev. I t is i n
accordance w i t h the present interpretation o f the coinages o f Crassus and Lollius that
the issues o f Scarpus bear the head o f A m m o n , but show no connection w i t h Crete;
this had been separated from Cyrenaica by the changes o f 34.

1
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 276, pace Levi 11, p. 19 n. 1. Cf. BMC. Cyrenaica, p. ccx.
7

* Cf. Mommsen, St. R. 1 , p. 377.

3 8
BMC. Imp. Aug. (586 ff.
3
Giles, CR. 1935, p. 199. 9 Ant. 69. 1; cf. Dio Li, 59; PIR. m, 40. 311.
4
Svoronos, Ptolemies, 1874; Regling, ZfN. 1 0
A further moneyer of denarii, M. Silanus q. pro
xxv, 1906, p. 395. cos., who is ascribed by Ganter~(p. 46), followed by
5
Unrecognised by Ganter, p. 46. Syme, RR. p. 266 n. 3, to this province, should be
6
If, as seems probable, coins with this type were reattributed to Achaia (Miinzer, PW. x, 1096;
minted at Cnossus, its character was there honorary, Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, p. 204; Glauning,
since the colony was officially founded on Roman l.c. p. 28 n. 88; cf. IG. in, 568).
soil.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 59

12. MELITA

A small issue at this mint presents problems that are not wholly soluble. The legends
are MEAITAI03N and C. A R R V N T A N V S BALBVS P R O PR.; the types a veiled
female head and sella curulis. I t is unique i n possessing completely the features both
1

of local and o f official currency: the ethnic appears i n its fullest form and i n Greek, and
yet there is the name o f a Roman official, w i t h the title o f his rank, written i n Latin.
Technically, then, this is a perfect example o f co-operation between the commander
and the city to produce a coinage. The closest parallel—though there the ethnic is only
monogrammatic—is the issue of Sosius at Zacynthus. N o r is the resemblance fortuitous.
T o the realms o f Sex. Pompeius, and o f Octavian after him, Melita had precisely the
same strategic position as Zacynthus bore to the dominions o f A n t o n y ; i t was, as i t is
still, the key to Sicily and the Straits o f Tunis. I t is therefore very likely that the
coins indicate the presence o f a fleet-station and served its monetary needs. Probably,
then, Arruntanus was not governor o f Sicily, but held a position analogous to that
of Sosius.
The upper limit for this issue is 36 B.C., when Octavian suppressed a colony at
Melita which a unique coin shows to have been founded by Murcus i n 42 B.C. (p. 234).
The numismatic history o f this period provides a further reason for the coinage o f
Arruntanus. Issues o f Entella, Lilybaeum and Agrigentum (p. 392) indicate that the
end o f the Sicilian war was marked by the imposition on the Sextian communities o f
2
a vast indemnity, for whose extortion a number o f officers were sent the round o f the
island. O f these, Sosius and Atratinus, as w i l l be shown, ordered the local authorities
to pay i n aes coinage, whose occasion is marked b y the appearance o f the extortioners'
names i n Greek characters. Arruntanus, however, who signs these pieces i n Latin,
apparently took over the control o f his mint, but still permitted the Melitan authorities
a share i n its administration. I t w i l l be shown elsewhere that soon after his special
commission the mint was transferred to the quaestor o f eastern Sicily (p. 68).

13. MAURETANIA CAESARIENSIS (IOL?)

The praenomen imperatoris, exceptionally omitted on the group o f aes and denarii w i t h
CAESAR D I V I F. (p. 49), appears on inscriptions o f c. 36-32 B.C.3 I t is also found
on the last Octavianic coinage before Actium, which bears the legends I M P . CAESAR.
D I V I F. This series creates a break i n the succession o f purely military groups, re-
calling the more indirect purpose o f the 'foundation' currencies.
1
Glasgow; Hu. 111, p. 605. 30 f.; cf. PIR.7,
1,220. teles, was a strong Republican; cf. Cic. Fam. xm, 52.
1122. 3
ILS. 77, 128, 8893; CIL. 1, p. 28; cf. Schon,
2
A principal citizen of Melita, A. Licinius Aristo- PW. vi, 2031 ff.
60 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

The types include a bull and a l i o n ( P i . I I , 16), a head o f A m m o n and an elephant,

1 3

3
and heads o f Octavian and Africa. These representations are decisively African i n
character: i n particular, no less than three o f them are also found on the coins o f
4
Bocchus I I I o f Mauretania. Berbruegger* sees i n the head o f Africa a portrait o f
Cleopatra Selene; but her husband did not succeed to the throne until 25 B . C . , and the 6

8
titulature is unsuitable to so late a date.? Muller rightly assigns the series to the
interregnum between Bocchus and Juba (33-25); but his classification w i t h a local
group ( o f Tingis [p. 175]) is refuted b y the provenance o f the present issues from
Mauretania Caesariensis.9 The close correspondence i n type and style w i t h issues o f
Bocchus suggests- a date early i n the interregnum.
There is no evidence o f military activity (the cause o f so many contemporary issues)
i n the region at this time. O n the other hand, soon after 33, an extensive scheme o f
colonisation was carried out, such as had inspired earlier coinage b y the praefecti a.d.a.
et coloniis deducendis. A t least nine colonies were founded at this time i n eastern
Mauretania (p. 223),*° and the analogies o f Clovius, Hortensius, and M . Crassus make
it particularly probable that this coinage commemorated their deductio. Such functions
were, as has been shown, delegated to a representative b y the imperium maius o f the
autocrat. Hortensius was not only founder but governor, and an extensive array o f
later parallels from the local series w i l l show that Octavian too, as was reasonable,
regularly assigned deductiones to the governors o f his. provinces (p. 459). But Maure-
tania does not appear i n the Res Gestae as a province i n which he founded colonies,
and Gsell has drawn the conclusion that i t was attached during the interregnum to the
11

jurisdiction o f Africa. But a coin o f Babba (p. 222) shows that the deductor o f that city
in 32 was officially Octavian himself; and the same is probably true here also. Prob-
ably no one in Mauretania possessed high enough rank to be entrusted w i t h this honour.
1
Copenhagen; Charrier, Description des monnaies found on pieces with L E G . XVT, which can be
de la Numidie et de la Mauritanie, 165, corrects plausibly assigned to a date earlier than Actium from
Muller, Suppl. p. 73.176. arguments by Willers (NZ. xxxiv, 1902, pp. 83,80;
* Paris; Muller, l.c. cf. ZfN. 1875, P* 7i Ritterling, PW. X I I , 1376).
ll

3
BM; id. in, p. 101. 17; cf. Charrier, l.c. 164. (3) A variant of BMC. 309 in the British Museum
4
Charrier, l.c. p. 28. has a portrait that resembles very closely that of
5 Revue africaine, v, i860, pp. 60 ff. BMC. 602 which belongs to the pre-Actian mint
6
Syme, CAH. x, p. 346; cf. Gsell vm, p. 209; operating first at Puteoli (?), vide p. 5of.n. 14. Thus
other views are incorrect. the denarii do not interfere with, but rather confirm,
7
A group of denarii with the same legend (BMC. the present attribution.
Imp. Aug. 309 ff.) is assigned by Mattingly to c. 22- 8
in, p. 101.
19 B.c. and to the Emeritan series (from which, how- 9 Cagnat, Recueil de la soc. arch, du dip. de
ever, they differ extensively in style). But Sydenham, Constantine, X L , 1906, p. 97; cf. Charrier, l.c, and
like Grueber (BMCR. 11, p. 416), does not accept Gsell vm, p. 201 n. 5.
this view, and three considerations are in conjunc- 1 0
Carcopino, Rev. hist, C L X I I , 1929, p. 90; cf.
tion decisive in favour of c 32, (1) The same legend Gsell vm, p. 202; Kornemann, 359 ff.
occurs regularly on denarii of this time, but not later " vni, p. 201.
(cf. M. & S. 1, p. 62 n. 2). (2) An identical head is
 THE TRIUMVIRS 61
I t is likely to have been a non-provincial zone—like Galatia i n similar circumstances
after the death o f Amyntas (p. 250). Thus the present issues were made, primarily for
commemorative purposes, b y an unidentifiable adsignator i n c. 33-31 at an East
Mauretanian city; this may have been one o f the newly founded colonies, or more
1
probably the ex-capital o f Bocchus, I o l .
Meanwhile the imperium maius o f Antony was continuing to provide coinage for
more direct military purposes.

14,15. A N T I O C H AND LAODICEA(?) (SYRIA)

The penultimate coinage o f the period, o f an unidentified Q. Oppius, can be ascribed

to a region i n which no official currency had hitherto appeared. I t is o f orichalcum,
as analysis* proves; this contradicts Sydenham's* assumption that the metal is copper,
and his subsequent hypotheses based on that view. The coins have the following
types:
(1) Head to right o f female goddess. Sometimes crescent, Capricorn, or both, 4

behind neck.—Q. OPPlVS PR. Winged Victory walking to left, looking backwards,
carrying a bowl o f fruit and a palm-branch ( P i . I , 19).*
(2) Similar head to left. Sometimes a star(?)—as last. 6

(3) Similar head to right.—Same inscription. Winged Victory facing.?

Grueber's attribution o f these t o Rome (46-45 B . C . ) is invalidated b y the falsity
8 0

o f the coin o f Plancus which he uses as an analogy. Further, we have seen (p. 11) that
the issue o f Clovius which he also compares is not Roman at all; and even i f i t were,
10
the divergency o f title would indicate a difference o f office. I t too can no longer be
cited as a parallel. Nor is i t necessary to assume, w i t h Wehrmann," that PR. must imply
a Roman praetorship: i t may equally refer to a proconsul's rank o f PR(aetor) (rather
than his office), and might even stand for PR(o consule) itself (pp. 33,135,197). Thus
every positive reason that has been adduced i n favour o f Rome as a mint is based
12
on a fallacy; on less evidence than is recorded here, Laffranchi has already rightly
celebrated il definitivo seppellimento della tese urlana.
His o w n attribution, however, is no more acceptable: he ascribes the issue to
1
a Q. Oppius who was i n Pontus i n 88 B.C. * Apart from the startling anomaly o f
1
Solin Polyhistor, Collectanea Rerum Memora- 7
Paris.
bilium, 25. 16 (Mommsen ed. p. 113). NC. 1904, pp. 235 ff.
8

* Bahrfeldt, NZ. xxxvn, 1905, p. 42,15 per cent 0

For some reason Pais, Ricerche sulla storia ecc,
zinc; cf. Munzer, PW. xvm, 741. ser. n, p. 296, prefers 44.
3
NC. 1918, p. 176; cf. Beanlands, ibid. p. 188. 1 0
Ignored by Bahrfeldt, L c p. 29; Willers,
4
Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1909, p. 80. Geschichte, p. 215.
5 Cambridge; cf. BMCR. 1, p. 541. 4132 ff. 1 1
Fasti praetorii, Diss. Berlin, 1875, p. 80; cf.
6
Laffranchi, Historia, ix, 1935, p. 42, no.. i,pace Willers, L c p. 106 n. 1.
Bahrfeldt, L c p. 81. 1 2
L.c. p. 42. Ibid. pp. 39 ff.
1 3
62 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

orichalcum at so early a date ( p . 88), the busts from Pontus and elsewhere which he
cites i n comparison are inconclusive, first, since the principle o f attributing the mints
o f official issues from portrait-resemblances to local series is entirely fallacious ( p . 122),
1
and, secondly, since the heads on the present issue, whether they are o f Felicitas,
Venus, or Diana, are not one w h i t less like those on a large number o f denarii o f far
2 3

later date than 88 B . C . , among which may be mentioned those o f Considius Paetus, 4

6 7
T . Carisius,5 Arrius Secundus. I n fact their real resemblance i n coiffure is to the
denarii w i t h CAESAR D I V I F . and aes o f Crassus (Cyrene), as W o i g t perceived.
8 0 10

Such indications, though useless for a geographical attribution, are invaluable for
chronology: Friedlander" rightly recognises, i n accordance w i t h these analogies,
that the aes o f Oppius was issued i n c. 36-31 B . C . But he errs i n seeing a particular
12
resemblance to coins o f Thessalonica. Bonazzi, following an interpretation by
Babelon o f praefectus [classis], divides the rule o f Oppius between Corduba and
13

14
Syracuse; Gabrici prefers the former part o f this curious province—for which there
z
is no historical likelihood $—and explains unplausibly that Spain lay under the con-
16
stellation o f the C a p r i c o r n which is found on some specimens. But Eckhel rightly
saw long ago that this symbol must refer to Octavian. I t is not precisely true to
say that its only numismatic references are to h i m , since i t appears once on denarii
17

o f L . Papius, c. 80 B . C . ; but on those coins i t is one o f a multitude o f mint-

1 8

marks, and so isolated an exception is negligible i n comparison w i t h the hundreds

of other occurrences o f the C a p r i c o r n , which point inevitably to a connection w i t h
Octavian.
I t has not been noticed that the reverse o f (1) ( P i . 1,19), an unusual type (unlike the
commonplace heads, which are worthless for comparison), shows, i f reversed, re-
markable similarities—notably i n the arrangement o f the wings, the flying robe, and
1
the palm-branch—to litde regal coins o f Phoenicia * w i t h the head o f Cleopatra
20
(PL 1,18). The legends o f the latter, B A I I A I U H Z KAEOTTATPAI—ETOYI KA-TOY,
I 1 5
Ibid. * Bahrfeldt, l.c Even Sextus Pompeius did not possess both
Woigt, JIAN. 1911, pp. 25-7.
3
regions contemporaneously.
BMCR. 1, p. 532. 4081, pi. L H , 12.
4 1 6
DN. v, pp. 264 f.; S. L . Cesano states that she
Ibid. p. 527. 4056, pi. L I I , 1.
5
is of the same opinion.
Ibid. p. 568.4209, pi. L V , 17.
6 1 7
As Heeley, Transactions of the Yorkshire
7
Cf. Stephan, PW. Suppl. vi, 91 for hair-styles. Numismatic Society, H I , I , 1927, p. 18.
BMC. Imp. Aug. 609, 612.
8 1 8
BMCR. 1, p. 374. 3014.
9 Especially the Capitoline specimen. *9 A unique example of numismatic ingenuity is
1 0
L.c. provided by the theory of Woerl, Bericht uber eine
I I
BB. 11, 1865, p. 147. An^ahl im J. 1849 aufgefundener rom. Munien, that
1 2
JR.I>. 1920, pp. 153 ff. this or a kindred issue has such ugly portraits that
1 3
Monnaies de la ripublique romaine, 11, p. 276; it must have been struck by Octavian as part of his
cf. Ribbeck, Senatores Romani, Diss. Berlin, 1899, anti-Cleopatran propaganda!
p. 57. 302. 20
Svoronos, Ptolemies, no. 1887; Turin. C£
1 4
Studi e materiali di Archeologia e Numismatica, Hill, BMC. Phoenicia, p. Iv; Rouvier, JIAN. ill,
11, 1902, p. 155 n. 18. 1900, p. 265. 438.
 THE TRIUMVIRS 63
KAI C. 0EA2 NEGOTEPAZ, date them to 32-31 B . C . Their insignificance and inferior
1

execution indicate that they are copies, rather than prototypes, o f the currency o f
Oppius. His coins have come to light i n two known finds. One was at Rome,* where,
owing to the complete deficiency o f aes coinage, all manner o f small change was
3 4
accepted and is found. But i t is significant that the other was found i n Cilicia,
which adjoins Syria and at this time formed a single province w i t h it.* Thus type
and provenance i n conjunction provide evidence, much stronger than that o f mere
portrait-resemblances, for attribution to that region.
Now L . Calpurnius Bibulus was appointed governor o f Syria-Cilicia between c. 34 s

and c. 32,7 and died i n office at some time between c. 33 and c. 31. Q. Didius held
s 0

the same command from about the beginning o f 30 or the end o f 31 ; there is no evi- 1 0

dence that he was already there at the end o f 32," since all that is known of his governor-
ship is that i n the winter o f 31/30 he detained Antony's gladiators. He was succeeded
12

13
by M . Valerius Messalla Corvinus. I t has been shown that the Capricorn on our coins
is likely to apply to Octavian. The assumption becomes irresistible that Q. Oppius
became governor o f Syria-Cilicia, i n succession to Bibulus, i n c. 33/32; that, like 14

Scarpus, he went over to Octavian after A c t i u m ; and that, also like him, he was soon
superseded; He began b y striking coins without a Capricorn—imitated by Cleopatra's
neighbouring currency o f 32/31—and his last issues, o f 31/30, show a Capricorn just
as those o f Scarpus show the name o f Octavian.
As Bonazzi * points out, type (3) is o f a different style and weight from the others;
1

it is probable, therefore, that Oppius used two mints. One o f them is likely to have
been at Antioch, the proconsular residence; the other was perhaps Laodicea or
Apamea, the next cities of the straitened province. The thunderbolt and crescent, which
appear on some o f his coins, are applicable equally to the Antonian or to the new
regime. The bolt is the symbol o f Jupiter Optimus Maximus, w i t h whom Cleopatra, as
16
Cede vgcoT^pcc, may have claimed a connection; and the crescent can be conveniently
referred both to the oriental Aion conception o f Helios-Selene, ? and to Western and
1

1
Tarn, CAH. x, p. 81; cf. Kahrstedt, Klio, x, " Dio L I , 7. 3.
1910, p. 277. 13
Dio L I , 7.7; Tibullus 1,7.16 fF.jcf. Syme, RR.
2
R.it. xv, 1902, p. 16. 3
Rome collection. p. 302.
4
Rn. 1898, p. 629. 1 4
It is tempting to connect with this governorship
5 Raillard, p. 28; Ganter, p. 40; Dio xux, 22. 3. the inscription of a C . Julius from Ninica—very
6
Raillard, p. 35. 7
Ganter, p. 44. near the borders of the province—who professes:
8
PIR. 11, p. 50, c. 32 B.C.
7,
cams sum Opiorum (sic) (Bull, di archeologia dal-
9 Ganter, l.c; Blok, Sextus Pompeius Magnus mata, xxxi, 1908, p. 79, no. 3959A). Cf. also Cuntz,
Gnaei Films, Diss. Ley den, 1879, p. 97, Appendix 11. l.c. pp. 71,73, who provides analogies for the form,
1 0
Groag, PW. v, 407.4; cf. PIR. 11, 9. 59; and points out the intimate connection of the Oppii
Ganter, l.c. with Antony. *5 L.c. p. 153.
11
As Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 100; Cuntz, 16
Taylor, Divinity of the Roman Emperor, p. 126.
Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Inst, xxv, 1929, p. 80; 1 7
Alfoldi, Rom. Mitt, L , 1935, p. 124; cf. Tarn,
Syme, RR. p. 266 n. 3. CAH. x, p. 68.
6 4
COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.
1
Vergilian thoughts o f the 'new era'. I t may also show a claim to supremacy over
Phraates.* The inauguration o f this series b y Antony was no doubt connected w i t h
preparations for the imminent emergency: Caesar, too, had coined orichalcum i n the
East on the verge o f his proposed campaigns (p. 13). I n view o f the inexpensive form
o f inflation which currency i n this metal provided, i t is interesting to note that Oppius,
who benefited by Caesar's scheme, belonged, like similar moneyers before h i m , to a
well-known family o f bankers.*
Since Oppius, unlike Lollius and Crassus, bears the tide PR(pconsule or praetor),
it is improbable that L e v i is right i n supposing that the Syrian provincia was part o f
4

the dominions o f Ptolemy Philadelphus i n the same way that Crete and Cyrenaica
belonged to Cleopatra. A Greek silver tetradrachm o f Antony and Cleopatra attributed
6 7
to Antioch b y Svoronos* is considered by Regling and Graindor to belong else-
where, and so does not serve to prove suppression o f the proconsulship, which is
positively contradicted b y the coinage o f Oppius.

16. P A T R A E ( ? )

The latest official issue before Actium has no types, but the names ANTCO. YTTA. T. and
8
BAZIA. 0EA NE. (Pi. 1,20). I t provides absolutely no indication o f its origin. The old
0 10
attribution to Cyrene is now generally denied, and there is no good reason to assign
it to Syria." I t might conceivably be a regal coinage o f Egypt: Antony was overlord
o f that realm, though not a Ptolemaic K i n g . " But the style is against this attribution,
and i t is no less true that, from the inauguration o f their joint regnal era o f 37, Cleopatra
stood by the side o f Antony i n his Roman dominions (p. 372). Moreover, the present
coin not only emphasises the universal aspect o f her power by its title 6soc veco-ripa—
assumed at the outset o f the new era—but stresses Antony's Roman authority i n a
remarkable way. Gone is the accumulation o f titles which appears on his other
coinages: there remains only the chief magistracy o f the Roman state, which Antony
claimed to hold i n 31 (p. 421). Its presence is a witness to Octavian's illegality—one o f
many—in refusing to recognise this claim, and to the place o f the consulship i n the
13
forefront o f the voluminous propaganda o f the period. The emergency o f the year,
a long line o f previous analogies, and the makeshift aspect o f the issue, combine to
Taylor, L c p. 177; cf. coins of P. Clodius and
1
Lettres de VUniversiti JSgyptienne a Caire, 1937,
Augustus. p. 40: but his attribution to Alexandria is im-
* Tarn, L c probable.
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 72; Frank, ES. 1, p. 351.
3 8
BM; Svoronos, Ptolemies, 1899 f., pi. L X m ,
11, p. 146; ignored by Tarn, CAH. x, p. 80.
4
26; Levis coll. sale 185.
Ptolemies, 1897 f.; cf. Lederer, NC. 1938, p. 68.
5
Cf. Muller, Suppl. p. 30.428a.
0

ZfN. 1906, p. 397; cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 82;

6
E.g. by Regling, ZfN. 1906, pp. 395 ff.
1 0

vide Fink, JRS. xxn, 1932, p. 111, for our un- " As in Berlin collection; cf. Lederer, L c p. 70.
certainty regarding Antioch's position. " Levi 11, p. 144.
Recueil des Travaux publ. par la Faculti des
7
Cf. Syme, L c pp. 271, 282 ff.
1 3
 THE TRIUMVIRS 65
associate i t w i t h the military crisis. A t the beginning o f 31 and until Actium, Antony's
headquarters were at Patrae; the local mint o f this town—which was also active i n
honour o f Cleopatra (p. 374)—may well have been commandeered for this coinage. 1

Its legends present i n their sharpest form the claims of Antony and Cleopatra, and their
essential incompatibility.
2
Thus the last coinage o f the triumviral epoch, like the first, reflects a military
emergency. Those between them equally cater for the needs o f the troops, with the
exception o f Cyrenaic provincial issues, and o f a Mauretanian and a Cretan issue i n the
tradition o f the praefecti coloniis deducendis. But even these are, like the rest, based on
the military administration o f the imperium maius. A conspicuous feature is the con-
tinued avoidance o f aes coinage i n Rome: the triumvirs avoid the embarrassment o f a
choice between imperfect control o f an economic necessity and open infringement o f
senatorial prerogative. The unification of both realms after Actium pointed the way to
a solution o f many problems, but for eight years more this one was not touched; no
attempt was made at centralisation, and sporadic coinages continued, still by virtue o f
the imperium o f commanders and the imperium maius o f their overlord.
1
Greek legends were not infrequendy permitted * Technically, however, the triumvirate was
on official aes owing to its limited circulation ended (p. 417).
(Mommsen, M^w. pp. 733 f.; Hahn, Rom und
Romanismus, p. 71).
66 C O I N A G E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.

E. O C T A V I A N A S S O L E R U L E R

1. ITHACA

Among the first issues after Actium was one whose date, geographical attribution and
historical significance have alike been misinterpreted. Three coins, united by the
1
possession o f the same monogram, have the following different types:
(1) * Head o f Jupiter Terminalis to right— C. P R O C V L E I . L . F. Skate (Pi. I , 22).
(2) 3 Laureate head o f Jupiter to right—same legend. Double axe.
(3) Turreted female head to right—same legend. Column on plinth (PL I , 21).
4

Gardner,* followed b y Grueber, made the mistake o f believing that (2) bore a
6

different monogram from the rest; an examination o f the British Museum specimen
which led them to that conclusion shows that i t is quite untenable. The confusion
which i t caused must therefore be eliminated, and w i t h i t the hypothetical K P A . and
the consequent explanation as KPA(viov), accepted b y Head.? Yet the provenance o f
8
these coins is chiefly Cephallenian. For this reason the monogram which was rightly
read on (1) and (3) b y Grueber—and actually appears also on (2)—is interpreted b y
him as K(s)OAAA.9 But such a view defeats its own object. Greeks did not leave out
letters i n their monograms, which could attain great complexity; the absence o f an E
is thus conclusive against this solution. The same objection eliminates Bahrfeldt's
1 0
K O A A O . , which further perpetrates an anachronistic and non-Greek spelling. His
13
recantation" i n favour o f Corcyra (the choice o f M o r e l l i " and Eckhel ) is based on
countermarks which, i f indeed Corcyrean at all, might equally well support the
opposite deduction to his—namely, that the coins were imported to Corcyra, not
struck there. Besides, neither KO. nor KOPKYPAI. are adequate interpretations o f
the monogram, which includes an A , but lacks P. Moreover, provenance suggests a
more southerly island. Thus another attribution must be sought. I t is at hand—
l0AK(rj). This is perfectly i n accordance w i t h the contents o f the monogram, and
peculiarly suitable to the finds o f these coins across the narrow strait near Cranium.
14 J
I t remains to determine their date. Gardthausen and Tarn 5 compare C. Proculeius
w i t h C. Sosius, and consider that both were commanders o f a fleet-station (attributed
to Cephallenia) i n c. 39 B.C. But all other naval officers o f Antony who issued coinage

Monogram 4.
1 8
Cf. Bahrfeldt, I.e.; Gardner, l.c. p. xlii: especi-
2
Bahrfeldt, JIAN. vm, 1911, pp. 222 ff. 1; cf. ally near Cranium.
BMC. Peloponnese, p. 83.65; BMCR. 11, p. 533.232. 9 L . c ; cf. Syme, RR. pp. 266 n. 3, 299 n. 1.
Ibid. 2, 67, 234 respectively.
3 1 0
L.c. 1 1
NZ. I9i8,pp. 159 f.
Bahrfeldt, l.c. 4; BM, Athens.
4 1 4
Familiarum Romanarum Numismata, I I , p. 361.
5 BMC. Peloponnese, p. 83. 1 3
DN. v, p. 289.
BMCR. 11, p. 533 . 1.
6
n
1 4
11, 1, p. 228 n. 3.
7 HN. p. 427. CAH. x, p. 52.
x
5
 O C T A V I A N AS S O L E R U L E R 67
1
were at least o f senatorial status, whereas Proculeius was a knight. Furthermore, an
anecdote o f Pliny the Elder shows that at least as early as c. 37 B.C. he was i n the em-
2

ployment o f Octavian: there is no record o f any activity under Antony. N o r did his
3
connection w i t h Octavian cease. Macdonald assigns the coinage to the year of Actium.
But i t could not have been issued for Octavian at Ithaca before the battle, and thereafter
Proculeius accompanied the victor to Egypt, where he succeeded i n capturing Cleo-
patra. O n the other hand, the period 30 (August*) to 28 is very probable for the
4

6
coinage: i t explains both the absence o f title and the occasion o f the issue. The coin
of a peregrine city w i l l provide evidence that Octavian governed Asia at this time
through an equestrian procurator and personal friend, Vedius Pollio (p. 382). I t is thus
very likely that he entrusted the southern part of the Balkans to his confidant Proculeius,
7
who was also a k n i g h t ; possibly, however, one o f the governors o f Macedonia,
8 0 10
T . Statilius Taurus (?) or M . Licinius Crassus, was his titular superior. Octavian
still held an extraordinary commission based on an imperium maius, which, until the re-
stitutio reipublicae, enabled him to govern as he wished by personal delegation (p. 417)."
I t is the writer's guess that the unexplained type o f a skate alludes, like similar puns
elsewhere, to a subordinate o f Proculeius o f the Volscian family Raiap who was
12

possibly responsible for the coinage.

2. CEPHALLENIA(?)
14
Another piece signed by Proculeius lacks the monogram, and shows a head of Apollo
1
and a totally different style. * Only the type o f a double-axe suggests some connection
w i t h the others. This was probably the emission o f a neighbouring mint, which may
have been on the island o f Cephallenia. Whether this is so or not, the curious situation
of Ithaca combines w i t h the evidence o f previous analogies to permit the ascription o f
both issues to a military occasion. I t is highly probable that a section o f the Actian
fleet was temporarily posted at Ithaca and Cephallenia(?) after the battle, and that this,
together w i t h the whole region, was entrusted to Proculeius on his return from Egypt;
his headquarters were probably at one o f the islands at which the ships were con-
centrated.
1
PIR. in, 100. 736; cf. Dio L I , 4. 1 1
For commands entrusted to knights cf. Syme,
2
NH. V I I , 148. RR. p. 201.
3
Hu. 11, p. 138. 4
Plut. Ant. 77 ff. E.g. Sura at colonia Buthrotum, Hiberus at
1 2

5
Cf. Tarn, l.c. p. 112 n. 1. municipium Saguntum, 'Gallus' at Arelate(?), and
6
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 266 n. 3. many others.
7
Ibid. p. 236. 8
Ibid. p. 302. For the gens vide Schulze, p. 217. For rata
1 3

9 Ibid. p. 303; cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 117. vide Pliny, NH. ix, 78,144.
1 0
Cf. Dio xxiii, 2. For Achaia as part of 1 4
Munich.
prov. Macedonia vide Cardinali, Studi storici per * Cf. Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1918, pp. 159 f. (illustra-
x

/' Antichitd Classica, ill, 1910, pp. 37 f. tion).

68 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

3. MELITA(?)

Another commentary on the transitional naval arrangements o f this period may be

1
provided by a series o f little coins w i t h Q , whose half-Greek and half-African style is
2
characteristic o f the Libyan islands. I t has been variously attributed to Gaulus,
3 4
Cossura and Melita, and seems, for stylistic and administrative reasons, to be most
suitable to the last o f these. W i t h i n the last years before the principate the exact date
o f the issue cannot be determined. I t is clear, however, that, since the special com-
mission o f Arruntanus Balbus at the island i n c. 36 (p. 59.), the mint has reverted to an
official w i t h the lower rank o f quaestor—no doubt the quaestor o f eastern Sicily, to
whose jurisdiction Melita fell.5 Possibly this coinage was made before 31; but the
analogy o f C. Proculeius shows that the fleet-stations were not immediately abandoned
after Actium. O n the contrary, the huge flotillas employed i n the campaign needed
extensive repairs which, at Ithaca and Cephallenia(?), were even accompanied b y
coinage. I t seems, on the whole, most consistent w i t h historical and stylistic prob-
abilities that these issues recall a similar concentration o f forces at Melita under the
supervision o f the quaestor to whose sphere the island belonged.

4. ALEXANDRIA
6
A t about the same time an equestrian official inaugurated Octavian's coinage i n Egypt.
This is at first i n no way constructive i n character, but adheres to the monetary system
o f the last years o f Ptolemaic rule. The first issue comprises two denominations,
marked A and M, o f 80 and 40 copper drachmas 7—corresponding to an obol and half
an obol o f the silver standard—in direct continuation o f the depreciated coinage o f
8
Cleopatra. Both coins bear the head o f the new ruler; on the reverse is an eagle on
a thunderbolt—both Jovian types.* The legend KAIIAPOIAYTOKPATOPOI—0EOY
10
YIOY is couched i n the Genitive customary to Hellenistic rulers. I t also shows that
Octavian at once accepted the imperfect Greek translation o f Imperator for official use
i n Egypt.
These coins were issued by the first praefectus, the great C. Cornelius Gallus, who,
like his friend Proculeius," was a knight i n Octavian's closest confidence, until his fall
and suicide i n 27 or 26." N o w Alexandria had always been administratively separate
1
Bahrfeldt, RS. xn, 1904, p. 439.97 ff.; BM, etc. 8
Cf. Johnson, AJA. 1934, pp. 49 ff.
2
Mayr, Die antiken Mun\en der Inseln Malta; 9 Cf. Jacobsthal, Der Blit[ in der Kunst, Diss.
Muller in, p. 140. Bonn, 1906, p. 12.
3
Landolina-Paterno, Cat. Fischer coll. pp. 36 f. Vogt, Alexandrinische Miin^en, p. 13.
1 0

4
Bahrfeldt, l.c. 1 1
Dio L I I I , 24. 2.
5 Pliny, NH. H I , 92. 1 2
Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 134; Syme, RR.
6
Milne, JEA. 1927, Group 1. pp. 300, 334; id., Actes du Ve Congrhs de Papyro-
7 Regling, ZfN. 1901, p. 115. logie, p. 460.
 O C T A V I A N AS S O L E R U L E R 69
from E g y p t ; and the words i n an inscription from Philae, praefectus Alexandriae et
1

Aegyptiprimus* indicate that Cornelius* post was not yet thought o f as an equestrian
governorship,* but as an extended praefectura urbis Alexandriae, no doubt primarily
military and naval i n character. Other commands which were practically, but not
actually, governorships occur i n Africa, Galatia, Noricum, and elsewhere.

5. CYRENE

From the same transitionaji period there is a tridenominational issue, based on an as

of c. 95 grains, by A . Pupius Rufus quaestor pro praetor et Greek legends, the letters L
and A (for Libya), and African types—head o f Ammon, ram and serpents—bear
witness to the restriction o f the coinage to the Cyrenaic half o f the former province
Creta-Cyrenaica, divided i n c. 34 (p. 58). When, at an earlier date, Cyrenaica had
6

thus stood alone, i t had been ruled by a quaestor *J i t is therefore noteworthy that,
alongside o f coins w i t h the quaestorian sacculus and sella* Pupius strikes others
emphasising his substantive praetorian rank b y the types o f sella castrensis* reserved
for curule magistrates, and hasta donatica, denoting imperium (p. 16). Since, then,
10

the ordinary quaestors were not yet entitled to imperium (p. 140), and their signatures
do not any longer appear on coinage (p. 141), Pupius must have been acting-governor
of the Cyrenaica. This had ceased to be an important military post, since the legions o f
L . Pinarius Scarpus had been taken over b y the new prefect o f Egypt." The present
issue appears to indicate that some provinces at least were not governed at this time
by knights i n the same way as Asia, Egypt and Greece; but i t also shows that i m -
portant senators were not yet readmitted to the Eastern promagistracies, except, with
misgivings, i n special circumstances such as warranted the command o f M . Licinius
Crassus.
6. A P A M E A (BITHYNIA)(?)

A very rare piece * w i t h D I V O I V L I O (his laureate head to right) and A E G I P T O (sic)

1

C A P T A (crocodile to right) derives its reverse type from denarii o f 28 and 27 B . C . 1 3

struck, i n an individual style, at an Eastern mint. The portrait, on the other hand,
bears a very close resemblance to those on colonial issues, which are attributed else-
where to Apamea i n Bithynia (p. 256) on the grounds o f a distinctive type and a
peculiar execution. I t is probable that the denarii were struck i n the same province, 14

1
OGIS. 193; Pap. Oxy. 35. 899; cf. Jones, GC. 8
BMC. l.c. 33 ff.: not subsellium, pace p. ccxv,
11, 1. cf. above, p. 13, n. 9. * Ibid. 27 ff.
* ILS. 8995. 1 0
Ibid. p. ccxii; cf. Longperier, Revue arch&o-
3
C£. Horowitz, Revue Jephilologie, 1939, pp.47 ff. iogique, NS. xvm, 1868, p. 106.
4
BMC. Cyrenaica, p. 117. 27 ff., pi. X L I H . Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 106.
1 1

5 1 2
Ibid. p. ccxxii. Cast at Winterthur [genuineness doubtful].
6
Robinson, ibid. p. ccxxiii. 1 3
BMC. Imp. Aug. 650 ff.
7 Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 360. 1 4
Cf. Laffranchi, Rat. 1916, pp. 209 ff.
70 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

like an official tetradrachm o f 28 B.C. —imitated at Nicomedia (p. 384)—with the legend
1

3
I M P . CAESAR D I V I F. COS. V I . L I B E R T A T I S P. R. V I N D E X . * Mommsen
first showed that the latter celebrated the restoration of'senatorial' government as a
preliminary stage o f the restituta respublica; this view has lately been confirmed and
emphasised by Berve and Barwick* (p. 424), and i t is possible to identify local coinage
4

commemorating the first proconsuls o f Bithynia-Pontus and Asia (pp. 384, 385). The
present piece is likely to be a product o f the mint o f Apamea i n honour o f the same
occasion.

7. NEMAUSUS

Meanwhile, i n the West, Octavian initiated a coinage w i t h an ambitious scope, a

wide range o f varieties, and a long life, all o f which have been gravely underestimated.
This is the famous series w i t h C O L . N E M . and a crocodile. O n the obverse is I M P .
D I V I F., accompanied by t w o heads, facing outwards; the left-hand one invariably
has a rostral crown. These coins have usually been divided into three main groups:
on (1) the right-hand head is bare (this group is divided into fa] 'large bronze',
[b] 'middle bronze'),
on (2) i t is crowned w i t h a laurel-wreath,
on (3), w i t h a similar wreath, the letters P.P. are added.

Willers, who makes this arrangement, assigns the three groups to the years c. 29-28,
6

27-25, and 25-20 B.C. respectively, and classes them as local issues o f Nemausus. But
an ordinary city-series they cannot be, since their circulation i n the West was extensive
to a degree unparalleled even b y the official aes o f Augustus or his immediate successors.
A representative selection o f the find evidence w i l l make this clear. They were current
7 8
to the borders o f the Narbonese province, though countermarks o f Arelate show that
(like issues known to be official) they later needed confirmation before acceptance b y
some cities; stamps o f D.D.,9 S.D., C.I.C., and C . D D . A R . (p. 117)" show other
10 11

BMC. Imp. Aug. 691.

1
p. 283), Avignon (15 in museum), Orange ( J in
These attributions are made in the face of museum), Aries (seen in trade), Toulouse (9 in
2

Gabrici*s condemnation of ascriptions to Bithynia museum, 2 seen in trade, 2 acquired), Geneva

(Augustus [1938], p. 388 n. 1) asfrutto del dilettan- (Soret, Mimoires de la sociiti d'histoire de Geneve,
tismo numismatico. But he merely reaffirms old views 1, p. 233), S. Bertrand de Comminges (Lavedon,
(1902), ignoring recent researches whose conclusions Mimoires de la Sociiti archiologique du Midi, xvn,
tend against a centralisation of the official mints. 1930, pi. X X I : mus. de Comminges); 279 in Nimes
RGDA. p. 147.
3
museum, and nearly 200 collected in the neighbour-
Hermes, L X X I , 1936, p. 253.
4
hood by M. Andre" Nier.
5 Philologus, xci, 1936-7, p. 352. C(onsensu) D . D . ( — decurionum) A R . , and
8

6
NZ. xxxiv, 1902, pp. 122 ff. D.AR. (Scott, NC. 1852, p. i n ) .
Found at Marseille (Strack, BJ. 1902, 20 in
7
9 Berlin, Gotha, Marseille, Toulouse,
museum, 2 acquired), Vienne (81 in museum), 1 0
Paris. 1 1
Berlin.
Narbonne (66 in museum), Apt (Rev. arch. 1, 1903, 1 2
Cf. Scott, l.c.
 O C T A V I A N AS S O L E RULER 7i
limitations, also o f a post-Augustan date (p. 299). Enormous numbers have also been
1 2
found i n every part o f Gallia Comata, including all the Rhine camps o f the province;
beyond the river they circulated to a vast extent i n free Germany.3 They abound in the
4
region later comprising the equestrian provinces o f Rhaetia-Vindelicia, Noricum,5 and
6 8
the Pennine Alps, and are commonly discovered even i n Pannonia? and Illyricum.
But even this is far from the whole tale. Numerous specimens have come to light i n
9 10 12 13
I t a l y and Spain, and even i n Portugal," B r i t a i n and North A f r i c a ; the obverse type
1
Rheims, Paris, Autun, S. Blaise, Castagnet, 1886, p. 22), Hammeran (ibid.), Rottweil (mus.;
Metz (Strack, I.e.), Mont S. Michel (Rev. arch. 11, Nesde, Funde, p. 69), Tubingen (Univ. Coll.; ibid,
1904, p. 286), near Besancpn (mus. [4J]), S. p. 72), Ohringen (Barth coll.; ibid. p. 79), Riegel
Saens, Teutre, Guerbaville-la-Mailleraye, Verneuil, (Bissinger, Funde, p. 15), Utrecht (mus. ;• van Hoorn,
Pitres, Cahaignes, Breteuil (Coutil, Inventaire des Gids, p. 47), Tangermunde (Hansen, Abhandlungen
monnaies gauloises de la Seine-Infirieure), near und Berichte aus dem Museum fur Heimatkunde \u
Montivilliers (mus.), Caudebec-les-Elbeuf (Bull, de Magdeburg, v, 1928, p. 310), Hofheim (Ritterling,
la Comm. arch, de la Seine-Infirieure, vm, 1888-Vat. p. 103), Mannheim (Karlsruhe mus.; letter from
90, p. 227 [3]), Orival (ibid. pp. 458, 460), Elbeuf Director).
(Drouet, ibid, ix, 1892, p. 226), Preignan (ZfN. 4
S. Gall (Simonett, An^eiger fur Schwei^erische
xxiv, 1904, Jahresbericht, p. 17), Rennes (Toul- Altertumskunde, xxxvi, 1934, p. 94), Oberhausen
mouche, Cat. p. 47), S. Germain-en-Laye (Reinach, (Augsburg mus.), Riedlingen (mus.; Nesde, l.c.
Cat. p. 319), Bordeaux (mus.), Poitiers (mus.), etc. p. 86), Andeer (Mitteilungen der antiquarischen
2
E.g. Ubbergen (Breuerj Oudheidk. Meded. uit'sGesellschaft in Zurich, xxvi, 1903, p. 42).
Rijksmus. te Leiden, NR. X I I , 1931, p. 95), Hees 5 E.g. Zollfeld (Graz mus., Pichler, Repertorium
(Brunsting, Archaeologisch-Historische Bijdragen, iv, der steierischen Miinikunde, 11, p. 3).
1937, p. 166), Nijmegen (mus.), Neuss (155^!) 6
E.g. S. Bernard (Strack, I.e.).
(Strack, BJ. cxii, 1904, p. 452 n. 2), Wiesbaden, 7 Budapest mus. Prof. Alfoldi informs me that he
Mannheim, Coblenz, Crefeld (id. cvm, 1902), has seen a number of Hungarian provenance. Also
Basel-Kaiseraugst (Basel [3]), Baden in Aargau found at Vienna (Rdmisches mus., Vienna), Petronel
(Basel), Mulhouse (mus.), Windisch (Laur-Belart, (Elmer, NZ. L X V I , 1933, p. 56), Ptuj (Pichler, l.c).
Romisch-Germanische Forschungen, x, 1935; cf. 8
Si§ak (many), Osijek (Zagreb mus.). Two in
Stuckelberg, ZfN. xxn, 1900, pp. 40 ff. [12]; Belgrade mus. probably found locally (Elmer, Cat.
An^eiger fur Schweqerische Altertumskunde, xxxiv, 24, 25;cf. p. iv).
1932, p. 112 [27Y-]; ibid, xxxv, 1933, p. 17 9 Aquileia, Trieste (Strack, l.c. p. 12 n. 1); many
b f l ; ibid, xxxvi, 1934, p. 94 [if]), Lenzburg in Italian museums.
(ibid, xxxvili, 1936, p. 12), Berne, Lausanne 1 0
Numantia, Sagunto (Simancas, MJSEA. xcn
(Strack, l.c), Enge (Tschumi, Jahrbuch des Bern- [iv, 1925-6], p. 25, also own collection (acquired
ischen historischen Museums, 1922, p. 23), Winter-from lot of Spanish origin); 12, probably mosdy of
thur (mus.), Courroux (many) (Basel), Strasbourg Peninsular provenance, at Madrid (Calvo y Sanchez,
(Forrer, Strasbourg-Argentorate, 1, p. 272; 11, p. 579;Saldn de Numismdtica, p. 209).
many), Bingen (Behrens, Cat. p. 153), Andernach 1 1
E.g. Serrazeda (Tomar mus.; Leite de Vascon-
(Mainz mus.; Forrer, Keltische Numismatik, fig. 13), cellos, Archeologo Portugues, xxn, 1917, p. 143).
Pommern, Urmitz, Calcar (Bonn Mus.), Xanten 1 2
Tewkesbury, Winchester (Berlin); others in
(Steiner, Cat. p. 85). Chester mus. (Sutherland, Coinage and Currency in
3
Frankfurt-am-Main, Darmstadt (Strack, BJ. Roman Britain, p. 4 n. 2), Winchester mus.
cvm, 1902, p. 10), Saalburg (Saalburg Jahrbuch, v,
1 3
Berlin. Specimens at Constantine (Hinglais,
PP' 49> 55; vi, pp. 45,49), Nauheim (Verhandlungen Recueil de la Soc. arch, du dip. de Constantine, xxxvili,
der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthropologic, xvin,1904, p. 24) are probably of African provenance.
72 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAI US, 49—28 B.C.
was imitated i n Sardinia (p. 146). This can be no ordinary city-mintage—it was utterly
unwarranted by the commercial rank o f Nemausus, which was only one o f a number
of fairly prosperous towns.
The circulation o f these issues is thus totally inconsistent with the view that they
were a local currency. I n finds they completely eclipse the Gallic local series. I n seven
museums and one private collection o f the Narbonese province there are 64!
1 2

Augustan coins o f colonia Latina Vienna (p. 337) and 14 o f colorua Copia (p. 207),
whereas there are no less than 6 6 3 ^ o f the Nemausan pieces! I f the earliest o f
Willers's groups is considered separately, the same conclusion as to scope must be
inevitably derived from it, for two reasons. I n the first place, these coins were thought
3
worthy o f extensive contemporary imitation, which very rarely befell any but
4
official issues. Secondly, a number o f the countermarks which they present are o f
official character and are only found elsewhere on official aes—IMP. w i t h litunsf
6 7 8 0
P.P., E Q . , C A . , and a star, which appear otherwise only on the ' A l t a r ' series o f
L u g d u n u m (p. 117); IMP. A V G . , C A E S A R , which are limited to Roman coins
10 1 1 12

of the moneyers (p. 94); V A R . , which occurs on both the Roman and Lugdunese
13 1 4

1 16 17
groups but not elsewhere; * and I M P . , which is found on a number o f official series.
There is, then, a decisive combination o f reasons for believing that these issues are
18
not local. Moreover, whether Nemausus was at this time Roman or Latin, conclusions
reached on previous pages show that the choice o f this town as the mint o f an official
series was neither unprecedented nor irregular. Coinage by officials, who represent
the res publica and strike for military purposes or for a regional circulation, still often
bears the mint-mark o f the place o f issue. L . A p . Dec. q. strikes official (not locaty
currency w i t h the names o f Urso, Myrtilis and Baelo (p. 24); Cn. Domitius Calvinus
issues silver inscribed OSCA, and P. Carisius later silver and bronze w i t h I M I R I T A
(p. 119); Sex. Pompeius coins at the Latin city o f SAL(acia) (p. 23), and C. Procu-
leius issues aes w i t h the monogram o f Ithaca (p. 66)—just as Sicilian quaestors place

1
Nimes, Vienne, Narbonne, Toulouse, Orange, 1 2
Basel. BMC. Imp. p. xxxiii.
1 3

1 4
Avignon, Marseille. Budapest, Mainz.
2
Mons. A. Nier. '5 BMC. Imp. p. xxxvii.
3 1 6
Especially notable are copies at Nimes, Oxford, Berlin, Gotha, Vienna, Mainz, Bonn. This is
Nier coll., Cambridge, own collection (acquired at shown to have been affixed on a different occasion
Marseille). from 'IMP. with lituus* (see above) by the presence
Cf. Sutherland, l.c. pp. 12
4
ff. of both on the same face of a single coin at Vienna.
5 Gotha, Vienna, Bonn, etc. 1 7
* Altar' (BMC. Imp. p. xxxiii), Commune Asiae
6
Nimes. (p. 377); Caligula sestertius (Utrecht; van Hoorn,
7
Own collection (acquired at Toulouse). Gids, Abb. 29.14).
8 1 8
Basel. Conflicting views are expressed by Hirschfeld,
9 Brussels, Berlin, Gotha, etc Wiener Studien, 1883, p. 321; Mommsen, M%w.
1 0
Respectively BMC. Imp. pp. xxxiii (as G. p. 675; Kornemann, p. 517. 57; and more recendy ,
IMP.), xxxiv; Vienna, BMC. Imp. pp. xxxix, xxxii. Ritterling, PW. X I I , 1241; Grenier, ES. 111, p. 487;
11
Willers, NZ. xxxiv, 1902, p. 125. id. QAS. ix, p. 11.
 O C T A V I A N AS S O L E R U L E R 7 3

the monogram o f Panormus on their coins (p. 217). O f wider scope than any o f these
is this series struck at Nemausus: the evidence o f provenance and countermarks is
confirmed by the types, which are purely Roman and official. The crocodile refers to
1
the conquest o f Egypt. I t is found, inscribed A E G Y P T O C A P T A , on Eastern
denarii o f 28 and 27 B.C.,* as on an official aes issue at Apamea (p. 69). Considered as
3
the type for a local issue i t has naturally caused confusion; this view must now be
abandoned.
I t remains to attack Willers's view that the three main groups are to be assigned
to c. 29-28, 27-25, and 25-20 B.C. respectively. I t may first be remarked that this
arrangement is seriously inadequate, since there are at least nineteen major subdivisions,
and hundreds o f varieties. The iconographical scheme which this wealth o f material
makes i t possible to construct produces results which are surprising, but appear to be
incontestable. A survey o f the principal variations w i l l now be attempted, under the
main headings o f Willers's groups.
I a. Since the appearance o f the crocodile on coinage o f the precious metals is likely
to precede its introduction on the aes, there is reason for thinking that Willers's upper
limit, c. 29 B.C., is unnecessarily early by a year or t w o . His first group is divided into
two sections by weight. The heavier o f these ( ' l a ' ) averages c. 270 grains, and the 4

metal is not orichalcum as Willers suggests,* but bronze. Comparison w i t h earlier

6

official Gallic and north Italian issues, and the appearance o f a single pellet on some
specimens,? makes i t inevitable that the coins are asses, not, as Willers believed, tresses
8
' o f the Fleet system'. This view w i l l be confirmed by a study o f subsequent issues
from the same mint (p. 77). The conclusion that ' l a ' was inaugurated c. 28-27B.C.,
suggested by the reverse type, is corroborated by the right-hand portraits, which on
many specimens are closely copied from the denarii w i t h C A E S A R D I V I F.9 (e.g.
PL I I , 18) and I M P . C A E S A R (e.g. PL I I , 17).
10

11
I t has always been assumed that the other head is that o f A g r i p p a ; but on this early
series the features are not his, and on the two illustrated specimens there is clearly a
beard." O n the colonial issue o f Lugdunum which is the prototype o f such t w o -
1
Cf. Catalogo delta Mostra Augustea, p. 113. 23/, 7 Paris.
etc Pace Lenormant, La monnaie dans VAntiquiti, L.c. p. 134.
8

11, p. 217, who accepts 36 B.C. as an upper limit. 9 Nimes (large pattern piece), cf. BMC. Imp.
* BMC. Imp. Aug. 650-655. Aug. 602, Paris, do. (PL I I , 18). BM, Berlin, cf.
3
Conjectures by Friedlander, BB. 11, 1865, BMC. 594, etc Berlin, cf. BMC. 599, etc. Bar-
pp. 277 ff.; cf. Hirschfeld, Lc. The adoption of the barous of this type, Nimes (4), Toulouse, Nier,
crocodile as a civic symbol of Nimes, illustrated by Oxford, Hague.
the representation of one in the museum courtyard, 1 0
Own collection, cf. BMC. 634. Paris (PL I I ,
was derived from these coins but dates only from 17), cf. BMC. 652, etc These two classes sometimes
the reign of Francois I . merge.
4
Av. 13. 5 L.c. p. 124. 1 1
Willers, L c p. 134.
6
Spectrogram 1; considerable percentage of tin, n
Cf. Lacroix, Les midailles de Nimes au pied de
some lead, no zinc. sanglier, p. 19.
74 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.a

headed coins (p. 207) Julius is represented, and, since no bearded portrait o f Agrippa
appears to be known, this also might be the dictator. But the rostral crown, though not
entirely inapplicable, is not so suitable to him, and Agrippa's features are probably
intended. Such confusions o f the traits o f more than one person are paralleled i n Asia
(p. 334), and are a frequent phenomenon later at Nemausus (p. 75).
Other coins o f the same large denomination make Willers's lower limit o f c. 28 B . C .
for ' I a' wholly unacceptable. The right-hand portraits o f these are imitated both from
1
the so-called ' Caesaraugusta' classes o f gold and silver, which w i l l be shown to have
commenced not before 25 (p. 83), and from denarii minted i n the East not earlier than
c. 20 (p. 467).
2

The lower limit thereby suggested f o r ' I a' is confirmed by reference to ' I b', which,
though o f a later date, w i l l here be discussed i n anticipation, since a general survey o f
3
the Nemausus series is necessary to correct the existing misconceptions. Willers states
that these coins are contemporary w i t h the larger pieces o f ' l a ' , but the right-hand
portraits are, on non-barbarous specimens, drawn from no models earlier than the
aurei and denarii o f Lugdunum (c. 15-8 B.C.):
(1) c. 15-12 B . C . ( P i . I I , 19, 23). (2) c. 11-9B.C.5 (Pi. I I , 20-22). (3) From
4

c. 8 B . C . (4) T h i n distinctive features and fine Greek style. (5) Distinctive but
6 7

8
effective style.
I n all o f these subdivisions the left-hand heads provide fine portraits o f Agrippa.
The prototypes o f the right-hand busts suggest that the series was soon superseded, as
official currency, by the Lugdunese ' A l t a r ' issues, which commenced after c. 12 B . C .
(p. 115). The mint-mark C O L . N E M . , recalling an obsolete custom, could have been
misunderstood at a date when many colonies already struck their own bronze. More-
over, i t was convenient that Western aes should be issued i n conjunction w i t h the
0 0
Lugdunese silver (ibid.). But the vast quantities o f local imitations reveal that these
Vienne, cf. BMC. 339 (nose distinctive). The
1 7
Toulouse. On a somewhat similar coin at
same features are copied for the left-hand head of a Nimes, lacking a border, the left-hand head is
coin belonging to M. Nier, of which the right-hand bearded as on * I a *.
portrait is imitated from BMC. 625. 8
S. Bertrand de Comminges (cf. Mimoires de la
2
Nier, cf. BMC. 660. Avignon, cf. BMC. 665 SociiU archiologujue du Midi de la France,xvn, 1930,
(a particularly careful copy). ' pi. X X I ) . Not barbarous.
3
L.c. 9 Noteworthy among these are local fabrications
4
Berlin (PI. II, 19), Cambridge, own collection: from Gaul (own collection, acquired in Marseille),
cf. BMC. 443. Berlin: cf. BMC. 449(?). Cam- Spain (own collection, from Spanish lot), Frisia
bridge: cf. BMC. 452. Cambridge (PI. I I , 23): (Leiden), free Germany (many at Gotha, Vienna),
modified version of BMC. 457(?). N. Rhineland (Hague). Especially curious in tech-
5
BM (PI. II, 20), Paris: cf. BMC. 471. Variants nique are examples at Cambridge (heads ligatured,
with smaller heads at Vienna and Vienne. Cam- hair cf. BMC. 601, truncation cf. BMC. 277, 288,
bridge (PI. I I , 22), Berlin: cf. BMC. 484 (semi- etc.; another with heads suggesting Roman models,
barbarous?). Paris (PI. II, 21), cf. BMC. 487(semi- e.g. from BMC. pi. 2), in trade, Paris (pellets in
barbarous?). field), Oxford (of exceptional thickness), Vienna
6
Vienne: cf. BMC. 502, etc. (distinctive right-hand portrait), Helbing sale(1930)
 O C T A V I A N AS S O L E R U L E R 7 5

9
issues enjoyed a longstanding popularity. Willers considers that the group 'Ii> are
dupondii ' o f the Fleet system': but they weigh c. i88-8 grains, and the spectrograph
1 2

reveals that they are composed o f bronze* like many local asses o f the same period
4
and weight (p..300). Moreover, coins i n this group, as i n later ones,* have a unitary
pellet between the heads. Mommsen's interpretation o f them as asses is therefore
6

7
correct, and Willers's metrology as wrong as his chronology.
More important still is his next error, whose results affect the numismatics and history
of more than half a century. This concerns group ' I I ' , which Willers assigns to the
years 27-25 B . C . But Strack's researches on circulation lead'him to state t h a t ' I I ' and
8 0

' I I I ' at least remained current i n Julio-Glaudian times. This is, i n fact, an under-
statement: there are no grounds for believing that' I I ' was even inaugurated before the
principate o f Tiberius or rather Caligula, and many positive reasons for attributing i t
to that period. I t was the custom o f ancient die-engravers, either consciously or
unconsciously, to model the portraits o f dead personages on a contemporary type—
usually the reigning princeps (p. 334)—rather than on the features o f the man himself.
Such syncretism, illustrated for example by the coins o f Divus Augustus (p. 360), is
particularly probable i n the case o f a series such as this, whose plan had been stereo-
typed (and exact purpose forgotten) long before its termination. The survival o f
obsolete types for sentimental and commercial reasons was not unknown i n the
10
Roman w o r l d . I t cannot, therefore, be fortuitous that heads i n group ' I I ' reflect the
iconographic peculiarities o f known numismatic portraits o f prominent Julio-Claudian
personalities. The following scheme shows the iconographical development:
( 1 ) Tiberius or probably later." (2) Caligula" (Pi. I I , 24). (3) Claudius: (a) transi-

672, Vierordt coll. sale 684, Larizza coll. sale (Santa- 5 * I F : in trade, London; ' I I P : own collection,
iharia, 1928), 27. At Bonn there is a 'half which 6
M^w. p. 677.
the position of the lettering shows to have been 7
Group 'lb' is elsewhere (p. 114) discussed in
struck as such; at Nauheim is a hybrid with Roman relation to its contemporary issues.
reverse (Kunkel, Oberhessens vorgeschichtliche Alter- 8
L.c. p. 124.
tiimer [1926], p. 205). For the difficulty of cuV 9 BJ. CXII, 1904, p. 433.
1 0
tinguishing barbaric styles from the inferior tech- Cf. Pick, Die Miinikunde in der Altertumswis-
nique of the Nemausus mint itself, see further below, senschaft, pp. 30 ff.; Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 513 n. 17.
p. 115. 1
L.c. 1 1
Willers, l.c. pi. VII, 9; left cf. Tiberius BMC
2
Average of 23. That the * ham '-shaped pieces 33; right cf. ibid. 25 f. Berlin: 1. cf. ibid. 46; r. cf.
are non-monetary has been shown by Willers, l.c. ibid. (Divus Augustus) 146. Vienne: 1. cf. ibid.
They are discussed also by Goudard, Monographic 107, etc.; r. cf. ibid. 36, etc. Vienna: 1. do.; r. dis-
des monnaiesfrappiesd Nimes, p. 100; Kubitschek, tinctive. Hague, r. cf. ibid. 27. Nier: r. cf. ibid. 49
SB. Wien, ccix, 1929, p. 176 (St Florian coll.). (including truncation); 1. recalls group 'la' (cha-
3
Spectrogram 2, tin and lead. Perhaps from this racteristic eclecticism). Oxford, Vienna, Gotha:
group is the Nemausan coin chemically analysed by similar truncation, distinctive heads apparendy
Phillips, Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society barbarous.
of London, iv, 1852, pp. 272,288, with 78*45 per cent 1 2
Own collection (PI. II, 24): 1. has the long skull,
copper, 12*9 per cent tin, and 8-62 per cent lead. square forehead and small features of portraits of
4
In trade, London; cf. Berlin(?). Caligula (e.g. BMC. 1); r. resembles the 'Divus
76 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.

tional, (b) Drusus sen. ( P i . I l l , i , 2 ) , (c) other Claudian ( P i . I l l , 3). (4) N e r o

1 2 3 4

(PI. I l l , 4, 5).
The striking indications o f a post-Augustan date provided b y this iconographic
evidence are corroborated b y seven additional considerations:—
(1) The only ancient countermarks recorded on coins o f this category are P.P.
(p. 117), S.D.5 and L . A . ; the last t w o are local.? Thus the official countermarks which
6

appeared i n such large number on group ' I ' are entirely lacking. Most o f the varieties
o f ' I I ' are here assigned to a Claudian date, and i t is not accidental that nearly all the
official countermarks were affixed early i n the principate o f Claudius (p. 94).
( 2 ) I n marked contrast to T , imitations o f coins i n this category are exceptionally
rare. O u t o f about eight hundred examples o f ' I I ' which the writer has seen, only t w o
8
—identical specimens belonging to the Tiberian subdivision —seemed to be o f bar-
barous execution. The present chronological arrangement is confirmed b y a com-
parison w i t h the Roman series. There, also, barbaric coins frequently imitate issues o f
10
Augustus,? o f Tiberius and Caligula i n honour o f Divus Augustus and Agrippa, and
11
o f Claudius (the initial series without P . P . ) ; but thereafter they terminate abruptly. I t
is therefore i n accordance w i t h the plan here suggested that the imitations common i n
T have completely ceased b y the end o f ' I I ' .
Augustus' type of the same reign (e.g. Paris = trade, London); ideal heads (own collection); ugly,
BMC. Imp. pi. X X X , 8). Variant at Toulouse, wrinkled features (Budapest, Bement [Naville] sale
Gotha: r. do.; 1. distinctive. Budapest: r. cf. BMC. [1924] 568, var. Merzbacher sale [1910] 1345)—all
Caligula 17ff.;1. distinctive. Escorial (Garcia, Cat. of Claudian technique.
43), cf. Nimes mus. 'ham': distinctive portraits with 4
Vienne: 1. unmistakably resembles first por-
Caligulan affinities. Narbonne: busts of same shape, traits of Nero's reign (BMC. 3, 4); r. Claudian.
1. with features of Caligulan heads of Germanicus Var. Paris (PL III, 4), Miinzhandlung Basel sale 1,
(BMC. 49, etc.). For the iconography of Divus 530, own collection. Avignon, Vienne: 1. cf.
Augustus, see below, pp. 334, 467. PL III, 4; r. sharper features. Var. Paris (PL III, 5)
1
Marseille: 1. cf. Caligulan, PI. II, 24, in shape, countermarked P.P. Nier: r. do.; 1. Neronian por-
but both like PL II, 4 in features. Vienne: 1. cf. traits of Divus Claudius (BMC. Nero 6, etc.). Con-
Tiberian in shape and features; r. cf. Drusus clusive are—Vierordt coll. sale [1923] 686, Hess sale
(Claudius, BMC. 95). [1912] 1256: cf. BMC. 14, etc.
2
Own collection (PL III, 1): 1. cf. Drusus, BMC. 5 Paris, Gotha; cf. Goudard, Monographic des
(Claudius) 105; r. cf. Claudius, BMC. 50. Oxford: monnaies frappies d Nimes, p. 67.
1. do.; r. heroic Augustan. Mulhouse, cf. own col- 6
Munich.
lection: 1. more pronounced features. Besangon: 7
An incised stamp at the Hague has a medieval
1. do.; r. heroic, cf. PL II, 9. Berlin (PL III, 2), own appearance: it includes characters that might be
collection (£): 1. Dr. ibid. 108; r. CI. 8. Own col- Scandinavian.
lection: 1. Dr. 95; r. CI. 57 (including truncation). 8
Oxford, Gotha.
L . A. Lawrence, cf. Cambridge: 1. Dr. 97. Nimes: 9 E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 152, 155, 156; Blanchet,
r. Drusus; 1. heroic. Vienne, Nimes: 1. =r., Dr. 95. Manuel de numismatique francaise, 1, pp. 151 ff.;
Hague: 1. Dr. 208. many in own collection.
3 Berlin (PL m , 3) ( J ) : r. CI. BMC. 70. Cam- 1 0
Cf. Sutherland, Coinage and Currency in Roman
bridge: r. CI. 51, etc. L . A. Lawrence: l.=r., CI. Britain, p. 10.
23-24. Also stereotyped and featureless heads (in E.g. ibid. PL I , 1-7, PL II, 1-7, PL III, 1-7.
1 1
 O C T A V I A N AS S O L E R U L E R 7 7

(3) The lettering has begun to exhibit Julio-Claudian tendencies which are visible
in accentuated form i n group ' I I I ' .
(4) A t least four specimens o f '11* have been found i n England, where discoveries
1

o f Augustan aes are practically unknown, but those o f Claudian date comparatively
2

3
frequent.
(5) I n the Neuss find, out o f 155^ o f the Nemausan coins, very few indeed are o f
4
' I I I ' , which is elsewhere no less common than the rest.5 Since the hoard contained
1291 aes pieces struck before the death o f Augustus, but only 202 o f a later date, the 6

deficiency o f ' I I I ' can be best explained by the assumption that i t is o f post-Augustan
date.
7
(6) H y b r i d s join the Nemausan reverse-type to the obverse o f issues w i t h D I V V S
8
A V G V S T V S S. C. struck under Caligula.
(7) Finally, i t is hard to see how the neat, flat fabric and peculiar execution o f these
pieces could ever have been thought consistent w i t h the early date postulated by Willers.
The weight o f ' I I ' remains constant at c. 188-8 grains, and the spectrograph reveals
0
that bronze is still the metal i n use: i t w i l l be confirmed elsewhere that the metro-
politan system o f orichalcum and copper was generally ignored (p. 300). Though its
main lines are clear, the exact chronological limits o f ' I I ' cannot be established. I t is
useless to endeavour to fit i t into gaps i n the other Julio-Claudian official coinages
until more about the ramifications o f those is k n o w n ; nor are these complex problems
10
relevant to the present study. W i t h regard to the lower limit o f ' I I ' , i t is at least
probable that the latest coins are those on which P.P. is stamped i n two separate
countermarks (e.g. Pi. I l l , 5), exactly where the same letters appear as part o f the
original type i n ' I I I ' .
On this last group, w i t h P.P., W i l l e r s " is right i n dismissing as fantasy the date-sign
12
L I A o f which Friedlander discovered minute traces within the wreath on the reverse.
I n other respects, however, the errors o f Willers reach alarming proportions, since,
like Hirschfeld and Mommsen, he assigns the inception o f the group to c. 25 B . C . —
13 14

a date still actually before the Augustan reorganisation o f aesl But the now regular
appearance o f the letters P.P., i n the field, where they were first introduced as a counter-
mark on the early Neronian piece which concludes ' I I ' , suggests that ' I I I ' started in
c. A . D . 54; and this supposition is entirely corroborated by strong and persistent
1
At Tewkesbury and Winchester (Berlin mus.); BMC. Imp. Caligula, 88.
8

others in Chester mus. (Sutherland, l.c. p. 4 n. 2) Spectrogram 3, similar to 2.

0

1 0
and Winchester mus. The writer is now engaged in research on these
2
Sutherland, l.c. pp. 4, 154. issues.
3
Ibid. pp. 5, 11, 154. L.c. p. 122 n.
1 1

4
Strack, BJ. cxn, 1904, p. 452 n. 2. BB. 11, 1865, p. 277. Accepted by Hirschfeld,
1 2

5
E.g. rather over 33 per cent of all Nemausan Wiener Studien, 1883, p. 319; Goudard, l.c. p. (58;
coins in museums of S. France. 6
Strack, l.c. von Sallet, ZfN. 1885, p. 376.
7
Menard, Histoire de Nimes, VII, pp. 164 f.; L.c. 1 3

Goudard, l.c. p. 58. M^w. pp. 677 ff.

1 4
78 COINAGE B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49^28B.C.

resemblances to Nero i n the left-hand portraits (Pi. I l l , 9, i o ) . These resemblances have

1

2
actually been recognised b y two authorities, one i n a seventy-year-old provincialhistory
and the other i n an article whose circulation has been prevented by the Spanish C i v i l
3
War. Other pieces show heroic adaptations o f the Julio-Claudian versions o f
4 6
A g r i p p a and Divus Augustus,* or the features o f Divus Claudius. N o t only the
portraiture, but the technique too is unmistakably o f the middle o f the century.? The
chronological thesis here adopted is confirmed i n the most satisfactory way possible
b y the latest issues, which show, first, the curious iconographic traits o f the Revolution
o f 68-69 (e.g. Pi. I l l , 7), and then the features and styles o f Galba (Pi. I l l , 8 , 1 1 , 1 2 ) .
8 9

N o later models have been noted: the only official aes o f Otho was Antiochene, 10
and
the failure to revive this ancient coinage was not the only break i n historical and
numismatic continuity made by Vitellius. The influence o f the century-long operation
o f the official Nemausan mint on our appreciation o f Julio-Claudian aes and economic
history cannot be exaggerated." N o r is this risumd a digression i n a w o r k on the coin-
Paris (PI. I l l , 1 o), Schwing coll. (sale 193 2.428):
1
9 Own collection (PI. IH, 11): 1. cf. Galba, BMC.
BMC. Nero, 228, etc. Var. own collection, Merz- 77; r. distinctive heroic. Glendining sale, 1 (1927),
bacher sale, [1909] 1140 (less distinctive). Paris 112: head of Galban Roman type. Berlin (PI. IH, 8):
(countermarked F A T , see below, p. 95): BMC. 1. combines features of latest Nero and of Galba;
Nero, 162, etc. Toulouse: ibid. 47, etc. Berlin (PI. I l l , r. ideal Augustus. Own collection: var., more
9): 119 (note nose). Own collection cf. BM: 320, Galban. These last tend towards: Copenhagen
etc. BM: 330, etc. In trade (Paris): 356. BM,Gotha: (PI. m , 12): 1. cf. Galba, BMC. 72.
388. Own collection: 398. Vienne: 252. Niercoll.: 1 0
A Roman issue claimed by Ricci, Historia, vi,
235, etc. (straight nostril). Gotha: var. 155. Cam- 1932, p. 495, cannot be accepted.
bridge: modified, 244, etc Hague: 255, etc. 1 1
P.P., which has already appeared as a counter-
%
C. Robert, Histoire ginirale de la province de mark on group I I (p. 76), must have some special
Languedoc, 11 (1875), p. 49 n. purpose. Hirschfeld's P(arer) V(atriae) (l.c. n. 2)
3
Calico, Numismdtica (Lerida), 1935-6. The is no more likely than Friedlander's P(atroni)
author has informed me of this study. P(arentes) (l.c); Willers's P(arens) V(atriae) (l.c)
4
Developments of BMC. T i . 161 ff.: Vienna, is equally irrelevant and purposeless. Lenormant's
Gotha (2), Narbonne, Nier coll. (2), Budapest, suggestion V(ermissu) P(roconsulis) (La monnaie
Egger sale XLIII (1913) 343, Ratto sale (1934) 7, dans Vantiquitd, n, p. 217) cannot be supported by
Rosenberg sale 64 (1928), Helbing sale (1927) 3379. a parallel. The Claudian and later affinities of * I i r
5 Nimes. provide a more significant explanation. The princi-
Miinzhandlung Basel sale, 1 (1934), 101.
6
pate of Claudius saw the final suppression of all but
7
Cf. also characterless ideal heads at Paris (PI. HI, two very unimportant and distant colonial series
6), Avignon, Vierordt coll. sale (1923) 687, Hess in the West (Ebusus and Babba); the use of C O L .
sale (1933) 319. These show an advance on similar NEM. as the mint-mark on an official issue, and not
portraiture in group ' I T . as a colonial ethnic, was an archaism unknown to
8
Oxford: 1. Civil Wars cf. Paris =BMC. pi. 51. the present generation, which might well consider
8; r. Civil Wars cf. Paris = BMC. pi. 51.11. Copen- the coinage inadmissible unless it bore the mark of
hagen (PL I l l , 7), own collection (2): 1. similar but authority. This was therefore affixed in the form
finer; r. suggests date of Galba, BMC. 230, etc (note V(ecunia) P(ublica), for which the initials were a
nose). Vienna: both cf. Civil Wars, BMC. 48, 49, well-known equivalent (cf. ILS. 432, 637, 4024,
Paris =BMC. pi. 51.15. Bonn: r. cf. Paris =BMC. 5526, 5772, 6876). Blanchet, Milanges Radet, v, on
pi. 51.16; 1. var. do. Hague: influenced by same group. this subject, has not been seen.
 O C T A V I A N AS S O L E R U L E R 7 9

ages of Augustus, since i t results i n the expulsion from his principate o f a huge bulk o f
currency which has hitherto been attributed to i t ; i t also shows that, contrary to all
current opinion, the years immediately following Actium witnessed the inauguration
of an official mint which was o f the highest importance and apparently attained
enormous popularity. Gaul was no doubt selected for the initial issue, commencing
c. 28-27, owing to the new exploitation o f its copper-mines and the commercial boom
1
that the region was experiencing. The prominence o f Agrippa ( i f it is he who appears
on ' l a ' ) was justified by his recent triumph at Actium and his special importance i n
Gaul.*
There is no reason to believe that the administration of this mint was, before 27 B.C.,
in any way different from that o f the other official mints instituted hitherto by the late
Republican war-lords. I t was naturally, at this stage, under the direct control o f the
provincial governor's imperium on behalf o f the imperium maius o f Octavian (p. 422),
who represented the Roman aerarium (p. 97). The initial issues o f this mint are the
3

latest made under these administrative conditions, and represent the first attempt at
providing aes coinage on a large scale.
1
Grenier, Revue des itudes latines, 1931, p. 3
A discussion of the situation of the mint after
374. the initial issue ( ' l a ' ) must be postponed to its
* Gage, QAS. 1, p. 6. relevant place (p. 114).
8o

Chapter 2
C O I N A G E BY AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14

A . T H E T R A N S I T I O N , 27-23 B.C.

T
H E first Nemausan coins had not long been issued when a vital constitutional
change took place, involving the abolition o f the imperium maius o f the princeps,
which had been, i n law, the basis o f the currencies hitherto discussed (p. 411).
This reform occurred i n 27, but i t was not accompanied b y any immediate monetary
change: not until 23 was launched the currency-system o f the new regime (p. 91).
1

Numismatic evidence from the transitional four years is therefore inextensive, but
the three aes coinages that can be attributed to them are o f considerable importance
for an estimate o f the constitutional position.

1. P A P H O S ( ? )
2
One o f these three issues invalidates the conjecture o f Sydenham that Augustus
abandoned the rights o f coinage at this time.
I M P . CAESAR D I V I F. A V G V S T V S , his bare head to right.
COS. O C T A V O D E S I G . Victory.3
4
This piece, which the evidence o f provenance decisively assigns to Cyprus, bears the
date o f 27 B.C., whose political events i t commemorates. Cyprus had been recovered
from Cleopatra i n 31: but i t is hard to determine whether i t was at once made a pro-
vince 5 or was attached to Syria-Cilicia. A t all events, it was not restored to proconsular
6

government i n 27:7 so that the official who issued these coins was zlegatus, whether o f
Cyprus or Syria-Cilicia. Perhaps the former alternative is the more plausible, since i t
is unlikely that the governor o f Syria—who was probably M . Tullius Cicero at this
8
date —would have coined for Cyprus but not for the bulk o f his province. The mint
is likely to have been Paphos, the metropolis o f the island.9
The reverse legend is highly significant. N o t only does i t refer exclusively to the
consulship—the basis o f the new dispensation (p. 426)—but stress is laid on the con-

Cf. Syme, RR. p. 324.

1
cepted reverse-reading—which is, however, proved
NC. 1920, pp. 25 f.
2
to be correct by a number of. well-preserved examples.
3 Hill, BMC. Cyprus 1 (pi. X I V . 1). 5 As Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 114.
4
Hill, I.e.;. cf. Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus
6
As Syme, RR. p. 326.
Expedition, 11 (1931), p. 797 (finds at Ajia Irini). Miss 7 Cf. Cardinali, Augustus (1938), p. 161.
Newby (p. 22), ignoring the research which has led 8
Syme, RR. p. 303 n. 1.
to this unquestionable attribution, rejects the ac- 9 Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 489 n. 14.
 THE T R A N S I T I O N , 27-23B.C. 81
tinuity o f office, which was planned for ten years: the designatio, which assured the
1

future, is therefore considered more worthy o f mention than the seventh consulship
which the princeps was actually holding. This inscription on an official issue is ex-
plained by the fact that, contrary to frequently expressed opinions, the imperium by
which Augustus controlled the 'imperial' provinces was not proconsular—since a
'cumulation' o f consular and proconsular imperia is an absurdity—nor was i t 'name-
less': i t was consular (p. 426).

2. BYZACENIAN MINT(?)

Both the other official issues i n this transitional period occur i n 'senatorial' provinces,
and provide evidence for different problems. One o f these was made b y a governor o f
2
Africa:
I M P . CAESAR D I V I F. A V G V S T . COS. I X . his bare head r., crowned by
Victory standing 1.
M . A C I L I V S G L A B R I O P R O COS. heads facing each other, o f a young man
and a woman ( P i . I , 23).
This official, striking i n 25 B.C. apparently at a Byzacenian mint, is probably the consul
suffectus o f 33;3 the uniqueness o f the issue is i n keeping w i t h his superior post. From
4
three untooled specimens i t is clear that the male head on the reverse is too youthful
for Julius Caesar and quite unlike Agrippa. Attribution o f the other to Octavia would
make i t impossible to find a suitable partner for her. But i t was i n this year that
Marcellus married Julia; 5 and, since Tiberius cannot be considered at this date, i t is
necessary to assume that Glabrio represents the marriage pair (rather than Marcellus
and Livia) on his coin, evidently interpreting the match as dynastic. Augustus never
adopted his son-in-law, and did not indeed adopt a son until c. 17 B.C., so that this,
6 7

8
besides being unique as a numismatic representation o f Marcellus, provides important
evidence that, at such an early date, the hereditary principle was tacitly accepted even
0
by a senior proconsul. But the obverse type alone disposes of the view that during the

Dio LIII, 13. 1; cf. Riccobono, Annati del Semi-

8
1
R. P. Hinks informs me that there is no
nario giuridico della R. Univ. di Palermo, XV, 1936,positive iconographical evidence for Marcellus.
P- 374. A coin cited by Koehne (Mini, de la Soc. d*arch.
2
Misread by Morelli, Familiarum Romanarum et de num. de S. Pitersbourg, 1, pp. 145 ff.) is shown
Numismata, s.v. Acilia, and Patin, Thesaurus num- to be false by Duchalais (Rn. 1848, pp. 72 ff.),
ismatum antiquorum et recenthorum, p. 308; Wad. and the attribution of statues and cameos by Mau
7449, BM, and Vienna (a) badly tooled. (Am delVAccademia di archeologia, lettere e belle
3 PIR. 1, 11. 71, pace PIR. 1, 7. 49.
2
arti diNapoli, xv, 1890, Estratto, p. 12) and Koehne,
4
Paris (2), Vienna. l.c, are dubious in the extreme.
5
Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 135. 9 Such evidence is neglected e.g. by Sprey, De
6
Ibid. p. 137; cf. D Annie ipigraphique, 1928, grondslagen van het principaat van Augustus (Diss.
no. 88. Amsterdam, 1933), p. n , who minimises the
7
Stuart Jones, l.c. p. 151. dynastic element.
82 COINAGE BY AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B . C . - A . D . 14

years 27-23 the governors o f the 'senatorial* provinces did not consider themselves
subordinate to Augustus (p. 426). Glabrio saw the position as i t was, not as theoretical
argument has tried to make it. The problem whether the supremacy o f the princeps was
exercised, as von Premerstein believed, by an imperium maius o f 27, or, more simply,
1

by the outstanding force o f his auctoritas, is illustrated by the next, and last, coin.

3. MACEDONIAN MINT(?)

This has a bare head o f Augustus, to right, and a prow, w i t h no legends ( P i . I l l , 13,
14).* Sydenham,* following Duchalais, assigns i t to Gaul, and to a date o f c. 40-38
4

B.C.; but both the geographical and the chronological attribution can be shown to be
erroneous. I t is significant that, out o f 847 Augustan Gallic aes seen i n the South o f
France by the present writer, this coin is entirely absent. Sydenham describes the Gallic
series, to which he ascribes the piece, as 'clumsy, irregular, early, and o f high r e l i e f :
but these qualities are completely alien to the discreet Greco-Roman execution,
mature style, careful die-setting, l o w relief, and double-bevelled edge o f the present
issue. These characteristics seem to exclude Western, African or Farther Eastern attri-
bution. Thus i t is not surprising that the only specimen whose provenance is dis-
coverable was found within a few miles o f Istanbul.* The type, style and lack o f ethnic
preclude the possibility that this was a local issue; such a city-coinage would be par-
ticularly anomalous i n the Near East. I t is, then, an official issue from some part of the
Aegean area.
I t remains to disprove the attribution to 40-38 B.C. This is not difficult, since the
head on one specimen is precisely similar to a distinctive portrait on a denarius o f the
6

so-called' Caesaraugusta' class,? while the others that are extant are unmistakably con-
nected w i t h other denarii o f the same category. The ' Caesaraugusta* class is ascribed
8

by Mattingly to 18-17 B . C . But the metrological properties o f the present coins make
0

it necessary to question this attribution also. I t can be considered certain that the
portraits on the rare aes are imitated from the common and universal denarii: the con-
verse is inconceivable. N o w the former are uniform i n weight, averaging c. 283
grains; spectrographic analysis reveals that their composition is neither orichalcum
10

nor copper, but bronze." Such few official bronze coinages as survived after 23 B.C.
were generally based on an as o f c. 200-180 grains. I t is clear that the present series
12

could not fit into any denomination o f such a system. O n the other hand, i t corre-
1
Pp. 225 f. 7
BMC. Imp. Aug. 338 (hooked nose); cf. p. cviii.
* Berlin, Paris, Escorial (Garcia, Cat. 354), 8
Ibid. 330, etc. (straight nose).
Vienna, Rome, Walters coll., own coll. 9 Ibid. p. cix.
3 NC. 1917, p. 58; cf. M. & S. p. 43. 1 0
Five specimens weighed.
4
Description des me"dailies gauloises, p. 141. 1 1
Spectrogram 9.
5
Own collection, acquired at Istanbul. 1 4
E.g. Nemausus (from *\b\ p. 114). Even most
6
Cast in BM from Walters coll. (M. & S., of the colonies and municipia adhere to the same
I.e.). standard (p. 300).
 THE T R A N S I T I O N , 27-23 B.C. 83
sponds very closely i n weight w i t h a number o f local asses struck soon after Actium,
but more particularly w i t h another official series which commenced i n c. 28-27 - C , B

group ' la o f Nemausus. Module and fabric also point to a date not far removed from
9

the issue o f M . Acilius Glabrio i n 25 B.C. These indications suggest that some o f the
' Caesaraugusta' denarii, from which the present aes was imitated, were struck earlier
than 23 B.C.—a conclusion supported by internal evidence from that series, which
suggests that the year 25 is a more suitable terminus post quern. 1

We may suppose, then, that the aes issue was made between 25 and 23. I t remains
to determine its geographical attribution. I t has stylistic traits i n common w i t h official
aes, also lacking an obverse inscription, which w i l l be assigned to the Balkan area
(p. 107), and w i t h colonial coins o f Dyrrhachium (p. 275); its somewhat unusual prow
is imitated by issues o f Thessalonica.* These indications are i n accordance w i t h the
discovery o f one specimen (the only one whose provenance is recorded) i n the neigh-
bourhood o f Istanbul—where i t was i n the company o f pieces of the KOIVOV MccKe56vcov.
A n issue from a mint i n Macedonia, to which this evidence suggests attribution, would
naturally circulate freely i n Thrace.
Furthermore, a Macedonian coin would have especial reason to be there i n c. 23 B.C.
It was i n 23 that M . Antonius Primus, proconsul o f that province, was impeached
s 4

under the Lex Iulia de maiestate for invading Thrace. The coincidence o f date, com-
5

bined with the evidence o f style and provenance and the distinct likelihood that this
exceptional issue had a military purpose, gives great plausibility to its attribution to
this occasion. Like Glabrio, Primus, i f i t is he, places on his money, the head o f
Augustus, thus furnishing a second proof o f the effective supremacy o f the princeps
1
Sydenham has kindly pointed out to me that augusta' mint. Some of its portraits are closely
the tide accorded to these denarii is not a good allied to Eastern heads of c. 28 (ibid. Aug. 334,628),
one, since they resemble aes of Celsa far more and there is no reason why its commencement should
closely than that of Caesaraugusta. But elsewhere not have been independent of Emerita but con-
(p. 122) it will be shown that the arguments on temporary with it—in c. 25-24 (ibid. p. cix). Its
which such attributions are based are fallacious, operation thus continued until c. 19 B.C, when the
Here it will be suggested that the traditional chrono- * Patricia' mints took over the coinage, imitating the
logy is equally false. Some types certainly refer to topical types of SIGNIS RECEPTTS, etc., adding
the Armenian diplomatic success of 20B.C (e.g. new ones (ibid. p. cxi), and reduplicating the general
BMC. Imp. Aug. 315, 322, etc.), another, the Sidus themes. A reconsideration of the whole group of
Iulium, was well known to coinage long before the denarii is suggested elsewhere (p. 468). At present
comet of 17 B.c., to the occasion of which Mattingly, it is only desired to show the early date of the
BMC. Imp. p. cxi, ascribes it (e.g. BMCR. 1, p. 548. * Caesaraugusta' group, from which the present issue
4165), while other reverses clearly refer to honours was imitated before the reorganisation of 23 B.C
of 27 (ibid.). The other official mints attributed to 2
Copenhagen; Gaebler, NG. in, 2, p. 121. 22.
Spain are discussed in another connection (see pp. 3
Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 136 n. 6.
122,222,269). Some categories are clearly evolved 4
Cf. Volkmann, Munchener Beitr. Papyrus-
from the official coinage at Emerita (Mattingly, l.c. forschung, xxi, 1935, p. 55, for discussion of his
p. cix), but stylistic dissimilarity makes it par- tide,
ticularly improbable that this is true of the ' Caesar- 5
Dio LIV, 3. 2.
84 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

from 27 to 23. A passage from D i o concerning the trial o f Primus elucidates the
1

new methods o f his control: MctpKou T£ TIVOS FFpiuov/ aWccv §XOVTOS OTI TTJS MccKe-
8ovias d p x ^ 'OSpOaais £rroA£uT|<Te, Kal A£yovTOS TOT£ U£V -rfj TOO AOyoOcrrou, TOT£
2
8£ -rfl MapK&Aou yvcbun TOUTO -rreTroinKfrai KTA. McFayden points out that the
war began, and Stuart Jones 3 that the trial itself took place, while Augustus was still
consul; the former adds righdy that Primus does not claim to have acted under
an overriding consular imperium o f Augustus, such as he would certainly have cited
had i t existed. Equally, the imperium proconsular maius o f 27-23 postulated by
Kolbe cannot have existed, or Primus must have invoked i t (p. 425)J As i t is,
4

he states explicidy that the authority which inspired his action was o f a character
by which not only Augustus, but Marcellus also, possessed competence—merely
yvc&un. I n fact, he acted at the supposed bidding o f a superior auctoritas: a w o r d
6
like yvcburj is the only possible Greek equivalent for so Roman a conception. Mar-
cellus possessed auctoritas as being o f praetorian rank, but much more so b y reason
7

of his marriage connection w i t h the Julian house, which possessed i t par excellence
(p. 444). I n plain words, the opinion o f Marcellus now carried authority. That is w h y
8

Primus invokes him i n the Senate, and Glabrio places his head on his coins. The
authority o f Augustus* opinion, however, was unique: i n 27-23 that—emphasised b y
his renewed tenures o f the consulship—is the basis o f his supremacy, o f which the
proconsuls show their recognition by their coinage. The unusual absence o f legend on
the issues o f Primus (?) may show his consciousness o f the ambiguity, for which he
was later to suffer; nor did he even t r y to shift his responsibility to any superior
imperium. I t is not possible adequately to analyse the principate i n terms o f com-
ponent potestates. The issues o f Glabrio and Primus (?) are the first o f many mintages
by auctoritas: they therefore constitute a prologue to the vast scheme o f similar
currencies which was now to develop, and an epilogue to the two preceding decades
of coinage b y imperium.

1
LIV, 3. 2. * CP. xvi, 1921, p. 38. Hermes, LX, 1925, pp. 348 ff.; elsewhere not even
3
L.c. translated (e.g. Dio LVI, 3).
4
Das Erbe der Alten, 1, pp. 37 ff. 7
Cf. Furst, Die Bedeutung der Auctoritas, Diss.
5 Cf. Volkmann, l.c. p. 55. Marburg, 1934, pp. 13 ff.
6
Cf. &£{couoc in RG. 34; inaccurate, vide Henze, 8
Cf. Stone, CR. L I , 1937, p. 29.
 THE NEED FOR REFORM
»5

B. T H E N E E D F O R R E F O R M

The last o f the official aes currencies before 23 has now been discussed. Their variety
and extent refutes the common generalisation that 'practically no bronze coins were
minted between 80 B.C. and 22 B.C.' I f this refers to products of the Roman workshop,
1

then none were minted at all; but if, as is probable, i t refers to official coinage i n general,
it neglects the issues o f some sixty separate coining authorities between the years 49
and 23 alone. The only unity, besides that o f subject-matter, which i t has been practic-
able to observe, is that o f approximate order i n time: only a chronological way can be
pursued through the historical and numismatic tangle which obstructs advance during
2
the whole o f this period.
From a metrological point o f view, however, i t is possible to trace a certain evolution
—or rather, degeneration—in the coinages o f this quarter-century; and its correct i n -
terpretation is vital for an understanding o f the reformed aes currency which was now
to be inaugurated. From this aspect the bronze, and then the orichalcum, issues w i l l
now be briefly discussed.
1. B R O N Z E COINAGE

The metal used regularly during the Republic consisted of copper alloyed w i t h from 5 to
40 per cent o f both tin and lead.3 Zinc, the important secondary element i n orichalcum,*
is present i n no greater quantity than a number o f other minute constituents.* The
spectrograph has revealed that the colour o f a coin is not an adequate criterion for the
interpretation o f its alloy as bronze or orichalcum (p. 88). This may, i n part, account
for a number o f attributions to the latter metal which conflict w i t h analytic results.
Grueber strangely speaks both o f the issues o f Puteoli(?) w i t h D I V O S I V L I V S and
of Antony's Tarentine (?) series as orichalcum, and i n the former case Sydenham retains 6

the error: but analyses quoted elsewhere b y Grueber himself show clearly that both
7
these series are o f a lead and tin alloy, and the chemical results have been-confirmed
8
by two spectrographic tests. The analysis of the Tarentine (?) coinage has been misused
in favour o f further irrterpretation as orichalcum owing to a misprint o f ' z i n c ' for ' t i n ' . 0

The Spanish bronze o f the Pompeys provide a fixed point for metrological research
by their value-mark o f one or. Their average weights o f c. 332-c. 267 grains are i n
1
Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 197. 6
NC. 1917, p. 62.
2
Appendix I provides a summary of the coinages 7
NC 1904, p. 244 (81*20 per cent copper,
of 49-28. 3*9 per cent tin, 14*5 per cent lead; and 76*5 per cent
3
Cf. Beanlands, NC 1918, p. 191, etc. copper, 14 per cent tin, 8*3 per cent lead, re-
4
Cf. Gowland, Journal of Institute of Metals, spectively).
vii, 1912, p. 43. 8
Spectrogram 5, 5 a. In the latter of these (a
5
E.g. iron, nickel, manganese (NZ. 1909, p. 67), barbaric piece) a minute fraction of zinc occurs,
silver (spectrographic test). 9 BMC. Imp. p. xlvii n. 2.
86 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

accordance w i t h the bronze Caesarian quadrantes(» • •) o f the quaestor Cn. Julius L.f.,
1

which are based on an as o f c. 300 grains. Such asses o f c. f oz. provide conclusive
confirmation o f MattinglyV statement that the semuncial reduction was never con-
sidered permanent. I t is possible, however, that even this higher weight left a margin
of profit for the moneyers, as their frequent identity w i t h distinguished financiers
suggests. A similar standard, exceeding half an ounce, is attained b y the issue o f the
quaestor L . Appuleius Decianus at Myrtilis and Urso (where this highest denomination
[c. 512 grains] is much too heavy for an as and must be a dupondius), and by Octavian's
earliest asses* at Puteoli(?) and i n Narbonese Gaul, which average c. 280 and c. 250
grains respectively (pp. 46,41).. I n the same system are colonial issues o f Lugdunum
(c. 300) and Arausio(?) (c. 250) (pp. 207, 208), and official o f Nemausus (c. 270);
while Spanish colonies and municipia often strike at approximately half an ounce (c. 200)
(p. 156 etc.). O n these pieces denominations are not marked, but unitary coinage
is always most frequent and its assumption here accords w i t h the official analogies: i n
Spain at least i t can hardly be doubted.
But the same period also provides many lighter coinages. I n accordance w i t h earlier
4
practice, the semuncial reduction at Rome produced a corresponding reduction to
i oz. i n Sicily, which was maintained b y Sex. Pompeius: a fixed type for each value
5

establishes clearly the denominations. Also during the last half-century o f the
Republic, municipium Paestum reduces its as from a weight fluctuating somewhat
below the half-ounce (c. 153 grains) to the quartuncial standard (c. 105) (p. 202). The
discussion o f orichalcum w i l l make i t clear that Julius first utilised the possibilities o f a
6
fiduciary coinage. But i t was Antony who first firmly applied the principle to bronze,
since the asses o f his coinage at Tarentum began b y adhering to a standard o f c. 91-5
grains, and finally fell to little over half that weight. Perhaps the proximity o f the
Sicilian issues, which had been artificially valued for years, facilitated this step. A com-
parison o f the denominations subsequently struck by Antony's officers L . Lollius and
M . Licinius Crassus indicates that this basis was further reduced to c. 80 and even less
—a natural economic development once the principle was accepted. A n interesting
result of the introduction of unreal values is a complete absence of tesserae nummulariae
for more than a decade after 44 B.C.: 7 this bears witness to an official veto on the tradi-
tional initiative o f private bankers i n coin-testing (spectatio).
Octavian too issues a number o f series at the reduced rate. His emergency coinage
at Lipara—where the denomination of as is often indicated by a head of Janus—is very
light. Near b y M . Arruntanus Balbus strikes asses at c. 90-5 grains, and subsequent
quaestors at the same naval base reach a lower level still. I n Mauretania a tressis and
Spectrogram 54.
1 4
Mattingly, RC. p. 17.
* RC p. 28. 5 Bahrfeldt, RS. 1904, p. 342.
3 6
Contemporary analogies make it unlikely that Cf. Milne, The Development of Roman Coinage,
these are sestertii, as Milne, The Development of p. 21.
Roman Coinage, p. 22. 7 Cf. Herzog, PW. xvu, 1446.
 THE NEED FOR REFORM 87
as—for such denominations are more probable than the obsolete grades o f as and
triens—reach a standard o f c. 112 grains, and i n another African province, Cyrenaica,
A . Pupius Rufus continues at Antony's rate o f c. 95. A t Ithaca the as o f C. Proculeius
is only a little lighter; the Cypriot issue o f 27 B.C. attains 104 grains. But i t may be
said i n anticipation that a much higher standard o f about \ oz. is still achieved by the
Spanish communities, and about f oz. by colonies i n Gaul (p. 208). The official bronze
coinage at Nemausus also begins at the latter weight, and the Macedonian (?) as o f
1
Primus (?) is based on a similar standard. Such figures inspired sufficient confidence, after
2
what had gone before, for a gradual slackening o f the restrictions on banking. But the
market value o f c. 250-270 grains o f bronze must still have been lower than one as.
Perhaps also such an unit was inconvenient to adjust to the currency o f precious metals
(p. 90). The moment had come to restore by a detailed scheme the dignity o f the
coinage i n the eyes o f a people not habituated to token issues, and no doubt resentful
of an economic makeshift, or at least o f coins which may not have found ready
acceptance. But i t would have been wasteful to strike heavier asses, and a more i n -
genious solution combined a scheme o f Julius w i t h an entirely new metal.

2. ORICHALCUM COINAGE

The terminology i n these matters is unsatisfactory: the orichalcum (or aurichalcum) o f

Roman coinage is o f course distinct from the alloy o f gold and copper o f the same
name. I t is the former of which, as P l i n y states, aes Cordubense—apparently a variety
3 4

of bronze o f a misleading colour—imitates the goodness (bonitatem). This orichalcum

6
was not itself a natural alloy,* as Pollux, speaking i n connection w i t h yfj 0rr6xaAKos,
assures us: TO yap TOO 6p6ix«AKov pieraAAov ovr8£rrco KOC! VUV sis Trlanv T^KEI pepaiav.
Its distinguishing feature was zinc; but even this was not, i n its metallic form, known
to the Romans, who were only acquainted w i t h cadmea. Cadmea is roughly described
7

by P l i n y as a lapis aerosus, but i t is really zinc-ore 9 o f any k i n d , especially i n the form

8 10

of silicious carbonate o f zinc (calamine)." For alloying purposes this was not mixed
13
with copper-ore," but heated w i t h metallic copper. Although the presence o f zinc

1
Insufficient numbers of the coins of Glabrio are 1912, p. 43; cf. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe,
accessible for deductions to be drawn from them. p. 60, who records a few accidental occurrences.
2
Herzog, l.c. 1427, cf. 1446. NH. xxxiv, 2.
8

3 Cf. Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 285; 9 Davies, JRS. 1937, p. 283.
Meissner, Babylon und Assyrien, 1, p. 269. 1 0
Cf. Partington, Origins and Development of
4
NH. xxxiv, 4. Applied Chemistry, p. 368.
5 As Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xlvii. The nearest Beanlands, NC. 1919, pp. 192 f.
1 1

approach was spodium = cadmea+copper ore (Pliny, " As Tackholm, Studien iiber den Bergbau der
NH. xxxiv, 130). romischen Kaiser^eit, pace Davies, JRS. l.c.
6
Onomasticon, VII, 98. Dioscorides, De Materia Medica, v, 74; Festus
1 3

7
Gowland, Journal of Institute of Metals, VII, in, 36; cf. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, p. 62.
88 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B . C . - A . D . 14
1
does not appear to us to enhance its value, the virtual state monopoly o f that con-
stituent, and the novelty and pretentious appearance o f the alloy, combined to make a
success o f orichalcum, as its long history shows. Cicero seems to sneer at its popular
2

qualities, but this, like similar comments, may be caused b y an anti-Caesarian bias.
Control o f the cadmea-quaxnes* which were few i n number, indicated to Julius a 4

masterly solution to the monetary difficulties o f the State. The first issue i n the new
alloy o f orichalcum is that o f Clovius i n 455—issued i n the very district o f the
quarries. The spectrograph reveals that Caesar's tridenominational issue i n 44, under
6
the quaestor Acilius (?), is, contrary to its appearance, o f the same metal. This issue
is divided into the three denominations o f tressis, as and semisf weighing respectively
c. 347-319, c. 135-103-5, and c. 58 grains. I t is therefore necessary to suppose either
that the coin o f Clovius, which weighs c. 232 grains, was a dupondius, or that the
standard was arbitrarily reduced b y half during the year 45-44. I n view o f the
unusualness o f a solitary double-unit coinage at this time, the latter alternative is the
more probable.
Indeed, i t is clear that Caesar could and did attach entirely fictitious values to this
8
alloy, o f which he possessed considerable quantities and controlled the market. The
fact that orichalcum was familiar from the earliest times and still i n the Hellenistic
0

10 11
period did not detract from its entire novelty for coinage: the spectrograph reveals
that all is not orichalcum which glitters w i t h the colour o f brass, but that yellow Greek
coins o f earlier date are i n fact composed o f a variety o f the ordinary alloy w i t h lead
and t i n . " Thus Caesar could and did strike coins i n this metal as light as he pleased and
satisfy everyone except Cicero. Grueber's dismissal o f the innovation as 'evidently a
13
failure' does not take into consideration its persistence under the triumvirate and
long-lived success i n the Empire. There is every reason then to suppose that the
1
Cf. Segre, Metrologia e circola^ione degli antichi, sextans would be both extremely unlikely at this
pp. 361 f. period of elevated prices (cf. Mattingly, BMC.
%
De Officiis, 111, 23. Imp. p. xlvii) and extravagantly unnecessary if
3
Cf. Beanlands, NC. 1918, p. 187, etc. struck, in this valuable and exceptional metal, at a
4
Ibid.; cf. Pliny, Lc. The principal quarries of standard no lower than that of the heaviest con-
the Empire were not yet discovered; cf. Davies, temporary bronze.
Roman Mines in Europe, p. 61. M. & S. I , p. 24, see that it was rated higher
8

5 Analysed by Bahrfeldt, iVZ.xxxvn, 1905, p. 42. than bronze, pace Burns, Money and Monetary
6
Spectrogram 12: 10-15 pe* c e n t
°f z m c
> n
Policy in Ancient Times, p. 302; cf. below, p. 300.
o t

more than c. 1 per cent of lead; traces only of tin, 9 Cf. Macalister, Excavations of Ge^er, 11, 1912,
iron, silver. Augustan orichalcum has from c. 15 per p. 265.
cent zinc (Beanlands, Lc. p. 203). Cf. Oberhummer, Die Insel Cypern, 1, p. 182.
1 0

7
The middle value (c. 135-103*5 grains) can 1 1
Small percentages at Syracuse are accidental:
neither be a semis—since the largest, which is just Caley, MAPS, xi, 1939, p. 76.
thrice as heavy (c. 347-319), would then be the im- " E.g. Spectrograms 15, 21, 33 (Amphipolis,
possible denomination of 1} asses—nor a quadrans, Amisus, Smyrna); the first has no zinc, the other
since the smallest (c. 58) could under no circum- two only traces,
stances represent 1J unciae. Issues of as, triens and BMCR. 1, p. xxxiii.
1 3
 THE NEED FOR REFORM 89
dictator derived a heavy profit from the coinages, which are therefore a relic o f a
characteristically brilliant and unethical financial policy.
This conclusion is strikingly confirmed by investigation o f the moneyers who use
1
this alloy. Not only was Clovius a member o f a very wealthy banking family, but
M . Acilius (?), the quaestor who signs the Macedonian issue o f 44—himself o f a gens
w i t h Eastern business interests—is likely to have operated under the control o f Balbus
and C. Oppius, the most notorious figures i n the same profession. The coincidence is
seen not to be accidental when i t is noted that, o f the other two coiners o f orichalcum
2
before Actium, Q. Oppius belonged to the same prominent house o f bankers as the
3 4
last named, and C. Sosius too was a successful financier! Thus every one o f the
orichalcum issues was the work o f a professional economist: the titles o f Sosius and
Oppius show that they operated under the guise o f military commissions. These coin-
ages provided an exceptionally easy means o f inflation, a mine o f easy wealth, made
accessible by the economic genius o f Caesar i n collaboration w i t h the financial ex-
perience o f Clovius. N o wonder that Cicero sneers at such schemes o f revenue, and
no wonder that the issues o f Clovius are among the commonest o f Republican coinages.
The issue o f M . Acilius (?), had i t not been suppressed by Brutus, was planned to
increase the profits by one hundred per cent: that may be w h y the year 44 saw the
suspension o f private initiative i n spectatio.* Sosius, the first to follow Caesar's lead,
began with an as on the same standard, but finally reached a new l o w level with
semisses based on an as o f only c. 63 grains. These semisses were issued i n 32 B.C., and
in about the same year Q. Oppius is another convert to this tempting alloy (p. 61).
6 8
Sydenham, followed b y Beanlands? and Burns, describes his coins as * almost pure
copper', but chemical analysis conclusively reveals their metal to be orichalcum:* this
error and an equally mistaken supposition b y Burns, that Sextus's Spanish aes was o f
10

copper, are balanced by even more frequent attributions o f bronze issues to the ori-
chalcum series (p. 85). Thus Sydenham's discovery o f a Caesarian dual system o f
orichalcum and copper is a hypothesis whose metallurgical premises are as false as its
chronological. There were no copper issues during the period before 23 B.C.; nor were
the orichalcum currencies anything but fiduciary either then or later." They did, how-
ever, make a favourable impression on the acute financial brain o f Augustus, i n whose
1
Cic. Fam. xin, 56.1-3; cf. Frank, ES. 1, p. 388. Atratinus's coinage is a precursor of the Tarentine (?)
* Owing to the rare facilities for the application currency, which was of bronze,
of the spectrographs tests, and the regulations Cf. Syme, RR. p. 72; Frank, l.c. p. 351.
3

governing museum property, this statement must Cf. Fluss, PW. (2/?.) in, 1179.
4

be qualified by the fact that there is, at present, no Herzog, PW. xvn (1937), 1446.
5

way of determining the constituents of the issues NC. 1918, p. 176.

6

of P. Sulpicius Rufus pro pr., L . Atratinus augur, Ibid. p. 188.

7

and Q. Hortensius pr. praef. The last-named may L.c. p. 302 n. 1.

8

perhaps have overstruck the orichalcum issues of Bahrfeldt, NZ. xxxvn, 1905, p. 42.
9

1 0
M. Acilius (?), and the coin of Rufus resembles Ibid.
1 1
Clovius's pieces in date, weight and colour: but Pace Beanlands, l.c
90 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

scheme, which was now to be inaugurated, they played an important part. A great
lesson o f the preceding period was the practicability o f a token coinage and the special
utility of orichalcum is its basis. This alloy revealed the way to a systematic reconstitu-
tion of aes coinage i n the Empire, and to its reinstitution at Rome itself, where the
various provincial military issues that have been discussed had probably made very
little headway. A reopening o f the Roman aes mint must depend ultimately on a
1

secure relationship w i t h the silver denarius? The entirely artificial value o f orichalcum
made i t particularly suitable for this adjustment, but confidence would be best achieved
i f i t were allied to a metal which the people knew. I t is understandable that bronze
was not selected, since this had never been formally employed for fiduciary currency:
Augustus's choice o f copper (almost pure) was a clever one, since although the metal
was i n everyday use, i t was, like orichalcum twenty-two years earlier, new to coinage.3
Its comparative cheapness also avoided an insignificant size for the as: this would have
4
over-emphasised the definite adoption o f token coinage, which now occurred.
1
Cf. Milne, The Development of Roman Coinage, pp. 168 fT., and Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xlviii, ex-
p. 22. * Ibid. plain that ten of the asses at § oz. equalled sixteen of
3 Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xlvii. those at J oz., so that the as of tie soldier's pay
4
The copper as was struck at two-fifths of denarius) was ingeniously linked to the current
an ounce, but the dupondius of orichalcum was based rate of 16 asses to the denarius. This interpretation
on an as of only one-quarter: Willers, Geschichte, is doubted by Burns, l.c. p. 304.
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M 9i

C. T H EBASES O F T H E R E F O R M

1. I T A L I A N MINTS

A numismatic aim of this and the following Chapter is the demonstration that, contrary
1
to a frequently expressed view, Augustus did not neglect a serious economic problem,
but made a successful attempt to provide a universal currency o f aes. A t the centre o f
a complicated system, whose main lines were dictated b y the considerations just dis-
cussed, was an extensive coinage at Italian mints i n orichalcum and copper, first signed
by tresviri? then by quattuorvirif and then without signature. Contrary to previous
practice, the writer prefers to attribute the series to a number o f other cities as well as
Rome. This view is supported b y stylistic considerations and by analogies from other
series. I t would be very difficult to believe that asses so varying i n style and size as
Pi. I , 27 and Pi. I , 285—both o f L< Naevius Surdinus—originated from the same
4

mint; o f the asses o f Volusus Valerius Messalla ( P i . I , 24 and Pi. I , 25?), there is like-
6

wise every sign that this was not so. I n each o f these cases the distinction is not be-
tween an original and its barbarous imitation, but between two divergent styles o f
equal competence; and the differences are seemingly too great to be accounted for b y
a multiplicity o f officinae. The asses provide other examples o f similar discrepancies; 8

and the moneyers' dupondii also, equally without barbarity o f execution, diverge
startlingly from the norm (Pi. I , 26).* Equally strange, is a stylistic variant o f the
late unsigned asses which has a large crescent i n the field beside the SC. Exact
10

analogies for the distribution o f large official coinages among a number o f mints w i l l
be forthcoming from all the principal Eastern currencies—those w i t h SC (p. 98),
w i t h C A and A V G V S T V S (p. 102), and w i t h types o f a colonist ploughing
(p. 111). The anomaly o f Roman mint-officials on coins struck at other Italian
cities is not much greater than that o f their appearances on coins circulating i n those
cities—or elsewhere outside Rome.
1
E.g. Willers, Geschichte, p. 187; Rostovtzeff, Sex. Nonius Quinctilianus, Vol. Valerius Messalla.
SEH. p. 542 n. 47. 3
[L.?] Apronius, [Sulpicius?] Galus, [Valerius]
a
For the sake of prosopographical completeness Messalla, [Cornelius ?] Sisenna; P. Betilienus Bassus,
these may be listed: Cn. Calpurnius Piso, L . C . Naevius Capella, C . Rubellius Blandus, L .
Naevius Surdinus, C . Plotius Rufus; C . Asinius Valerius Catullus.
4
Gallus, C . Cassius Celer, C . Gallius Lupercus; BM. * Berlin, Bordeaux.
6 7
Q. Aelius Lamia, C . Marcius Censorinus, T . BM. BM.
Quinctius Crispinus Sulpicianus; M. Sanquinius, E.g. Oxford:—Tiberius (cf. NC. 1939, p. 217);
8

P. Licinius Stolo, T i . Sempronius Gracchus; Bordeaux:—C. Plotius Rufus.

9
[L. Aelius?] Lamia, [P.?} Silius, [C.?] Annius Berlin: again of L . Naevius Surdinus. Oxford:
[Pollio?]; [Claudius] Pulcher, [Statilius?] Taurus, C . Asinius Gallus.
1 0
Regulus; P. Lurius Agrippa, M. Maecilius Tullus, Cambridge. A specimen in the writer's collec-
M. Salvius Otho, A. Licinius Nerva Silianus, tion has the same distinctive style, but no crescent.
92 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
1
This is largely a numismatic matter; but i t is essential both to the main constitutional
theme o f this book, and for a correct estimate o f Imperial finance, that three current
and accepted opinions should be refuted. Issue w i l l be joined w i t h those who maintain
2 3
the limitation o f the coins to Italy, their exclusively senatorial character, and the
existence o f a large group o f Augustan countermarks facilitating special circulation i n
4
the northern provinces.
The first o f these views can be contradicted i n the most decisive manner b y
the evidence o f provenance.5 Extensive finds o f uncountermarked Roman coins o f
6
the principate o f Augustus are recorded not only from Cisalpine G a u l (which
was still occasionally under proconsular government [p. 38]), but from at least
4 7 8 10
seven regular senatorial* provinces —Sardinia, Sicily,^ Africa, Narbonese G a u l , "
12 13 14
Achaia, Farther Spain, and even Asia. But especially significant, i n view o f the
presence o f the formula SC, is the large number o f these pieces found—uncounter-
marked—in the 'imperial' provinces. The Roman aes was current from the very
1 16
beginning i n the new provinces o f Rhaetia-Vindelicia, * Noricum, Pannonia-
1
Since the validity of SC throughout Italy should four coins at Magdeburg (Realgymnasium; Lilie,
cause no constitutional difficulty. Jahresbericht iiber das Realgymnasium in Magde-
2
As Willers, L a ; Mattingly, Lc. p. xvii. burg, 1902-3, p. 19, nos. 142-5), most, or all, are of
3
As Mattingly, ibid. p. ci. Sicilian provenance (ibid. p. 1).
4 1 0
As Mattingly, ibid. pp. xxixf. Soukh-Aras, PSousse, Carthages(Cagnat, Klio,
5 Thefindsquoted, here and elsewhere, are not ix, 1914, pp. 200 ff.).
intended to attain completeness, but to provide a 1 1
Vienne (6), Orange, Narbonne (3) (in local
representative selection and to give a general view of museums), Montans (Mimoires de la Sociiti archie*-
the circulation of the issues discussed. For this reason, logique du midi de la France, ix, 1872, p. 228); the
vague and indefinite descriptions such as'iEAugus- greater part of the large collections at Avignon,
tus'—which, unfortunately, predominate even in Nimes and Marseille is also of local provenance,
the most recent of the widely scattered publications 1 2
Corinth (Edwards, Corinth, vi, 1933, p. 76),
which contribute this type of evidence—are ignored. Delos (Athens mus.), etc
6 1 3
E.g. at Migliadino S. Vitale (Urbano coll., cf. Lisbon mus. (cf. Teixeira de Aragao, Cat.
Prosdocimi, Noti^ie degli Scavi, in, 1906, p. 422}, pp. 251 ff.), Oporto mus. (as Krusse Gomes in-
S. Polo di Piave (Gatti, ibid. p. 141), Serravalle forms me).
Scrivia (Moretti, ibid, x, 1913, p. 123), Pavia 1 4
Istanbul mus.
(Patroni, ibid, ix, 1912, p. 5), Mologno (Bull. delV *5 Many from Oberhausen (Augsburg mus., cf.
Inst, di corr. arch. 1878, p. 171), Aquileia (Brusin, Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins fur Schwaben und
Scavi di Aquileja, p. 143). Neuburg, XL, 1914, p. 165; Bayerische Vorge-
To simplify these listsfluctuationsof status are schichtsbldtter, x, 1931, pp. 42,52), Hegau (Bissinger,
7

ignored. Funde, p. 7), Giubiasco (Zurich mus.), Hazzen

Arbus (Notkpe degli Scavi, 1927, p. 364; cf. (An^eiger fur Schwei^erische Altertumskunde, 1903,
8

Ricci, Historia, v, 193!? p. 109); cf. Spano, Bullettino p. 7), Chur (cf. Mitteilungen der antiquarischen
archeologico sardo, in, 1857, p. 199; many in Cag- Gesellsch. in Zurich, xxvi, 1903, p. 42; mus. Chur),
liari mus., nearly all collected in Sardinia by Spano Constance (Woerl, Bericht iiber eine Amdahl im J.,
(as D . Levi informs me). Others of Sardinian 1849 aufgefundener rbmscher Mitten, p. 14).
1 6
origin acquired by a collector in Hamburg. Enns, Wels (Pink, Jahrbuch fur Landeskunde
Syracuse (Orsi, Notice degli Scavi, 11, 1905, von Niederosterreich, xxv, 1932, pp. 62ff.),Monchs-
9

p. 383); Sicilian finds seen in trade in Rome; also berg (Salzburg mus.; Fundberichte aus Osterreich,
imitated (Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxiii). Out of 11, 1937, p. 297).
 THE BASES O F THE REFORM 9 3

1 3
Illyricum, and Moesia,* besides Gallia Comata and Nearer Spaing Imitations are
5 6
numerous and widespread; the coinage was common far into 'free' Germany, and
8
is found from Britain 7 to Esthonia. I t was, indeed, only natural that the pieces o f
the earlier moneyers should circulate widely at a date when the Lugdunum aes mint
had not yet been opened; but the finds show decisively that the Roman aes issues
o f the later part o f Augustus's principate were no less thoroughly dispersed 9 without
any additional stamp. N o r is i t even true to say that the quadrantes were limited to
10
Italy, since they are scarcely less abundant i n provincial finds."

1
Ptuj (Honisch coll.: Pichler, Repertorium der Circular, 1902, 5216), Rennes (many; Toulmouche,
steierischen Mun^hmde, I , pp. 196 f., 203), LeibnitzCat. pp. 43, 47), Bordeaux (mus.).
(Braun coll.: ibid. pp. 196, 204), Petronel (Elmer, 4
Twelve at Numantia (Schulten, Numantia, 11,
NZ. LXVI, 1933, pp. 56 ff.), KaSina (Ptestnik p. 198), nine from Spanish source seen in trade in
Hrvatskoga Arheobgickoga DruXtva, xui, 1891, London.
p. 27), Selce (Skoplje mus., cf. Grbic*, Glasnik 5
E.g. Gohl, Numiimatikai Rb\l6ny, IV, 1904,
Skopskog Naucnog Drustva, xui, 1891, p. 27: also p. 78; Elmer, NZ. LXVI, 1933, p. 56; Zagreb mus.,
Zagreb mus.), Novi Banovci, SiSak, Stankamen, Basel mus., Leiden mus.; in own collection from
PeruSic, Prozor (Zagreb mus.); another at Belgrade Salerno, Paris, London. This is a selection repre-
mus. probably of local provenance. For a Sar- senting eight different regions.
matian imitation from the Pannonian border vide 6
Found at Saalburg {Saalburg Jahrbuch, v, p. 41;
Gohl, Numvpnatikai Kb\ldny, iv, 1904, p. 78, Fig. 2; vi, 1924, p. 45; cf., probably, VII, 1930, p. 23),
Cahn sale, 60. 2259. Ohringen (Nesde, Funde, p. 79), Donaueschingen
* On Danube (Sofia mus., in trade). (mus.; Bissinger, Funde, p. 11), Mahlberg (Karls-
3 Trier, Bonn etc (Strack, BJ. cvm, 1902, ruhe mus.; ibid. p. 17), Neidenstein (Karlsruhe mus.;
p. 10), 130! at Neuss (ibid, cxu, 1904, p. 419), Jahresberichte an die Mitglieder der Sinsheimer
Kaiseraugst (Basel mus.), many at Windisch (An- Gesellschaft, 11, p. 13), Gschiess (Sercz) (Kubitschek,
leiger fur Schwei^erische Altertumskunde, xxxiv, Sonderschriften des ost. arch. Inst, in Wien, xi, 1926,
1932, p. 112; xxxv, 1933, p. 17; xxxvi, 1934, p. 94; p. 47), Nova Ves (Kolin mus., Bolin, Fynden,
xxxviii, 1936, p. 176; cf. Laur-Belart, Romisch- p. 107), Vechten (Leiden mus.), Rossum (Utrecht
Germanische Forschungen, x, 1935), Strasbourg mus., cf. van Hoorn, Gids, p. 51), Hofheim bei
(mus., cf. Forrer, Strasbourg-Argentorate, 1, p. 580),Taunus (Ritterling, Cat. p. 100), Hanau (Kutsch,
three at Mulhouse (mus.), Koln (mus., in trade, cf. Cat. p. 136).
probably Fremersdorf, Romisch-Germanische For- 7 J . G . Milne informs me that the coins of this
schungen, vi, 1933, p. 85), Nijmegen (mus.; cf. type are found at Woodeaton.
Evelein, Gids, p. 61), Ubbergen (Leiden mus.; 8
Jerwen (Ebert, Prahistorische Zeitschrift, v,
Breuer, Oudheidkundige Meded., NR. X I I , 1931, »9 3» P- 53i etc.).
1

p. 95), Hees (Brunsting, Archaeologisch-Historische 9 One of the commonest in all finds is a member
Bijdragen, iv, 1937, pp. 166, 170), Mainz (mus., cf. of the last college to issue asses, Sex. Nonius
Klein, Programm des Grossher{pglichen Gymnasiums Quinctilianus (6B.C; Mattingly, BMC. Imp.
iu Mainf, 1868-9, P* )> Bingen (Behrens, Cat. p. xcviii); the issues at the end of the reign (ibid,
I2

p. 152), Xanten (Steiner, Cat. p. 85), Pommern, p. 50) are also practically universal.
Grimlinghausen, Urmitz, Remagen, Nettersheim As Mattingly, BMC. Imp. pp. xvif. n. 4.
1 0

etc. (Bonn mus.). Also in the centre of the pro- 11

E.g. at Straubenzell (Zurich mus.), Windisch
vince, e.g. Besancon (mus., several), S. Andre* sur (Basel mus.), Hofheim (Ritterling, Cat. p. 102),
Cailly (coll. Glanville; Coutil, Inventaire, p. 13), Petronel (Elmer, NZ. LXVI, 1933, p. 56), Ptuj
Mont Jouer a S. Goussand (Spink*s Numismatic (Honisch coll.; Pichler, Repertorium der steieri
94 COINAGE BY AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

I n every case a very large number o f the coins found lack countermarks; particularly
striking is the fact that out o f 139 o f these pieces seen i n the collections o f southern
France not a single one is stamped. The evidence o f provenance therefore decisively
contradicts any theory that these countermarks were affixed i n this period to make
the Roman aes legal tender. I t was already legal tender i n every province i n the West;
the alleged limitation to Italy is quite unacceptable. Since this is the case, we cannot
admit that a large group o f countermarks is to be 'connected w i t h the frontier wars on
1
the Rhine, and perhaps also w i t h the Rhaetian campaign and the Pannonian r e v o l t ' :
in all these regions large numbers o f uncountermarked specimens have been dis-
2 3
covered, and, on the other hand, the countermarks even occur i n Italian finds. N o w
the latest coin to which each countermark is affixed w i l l provide its terminus post quern.*
A n examination o f the countermarks on this basis conclusively corroborates the
evidence o f provenance, and assigns them to the post-Augustan period. Mattingly
ascribes T I B . , T I B . C , and T I B . I M P . to the wars o f A.D. 5-6,6-9,9-12 respectively; 5
but such attributions are not valid i n that or i n any other order, since T I B . is found on
6 7 8
coins o f the principate o f Tiberius, and T I B . C. also, whereas T I B . I M P . , like T . C .
0 10
I M P . , is equally common under Caligula. I M P . and T I B . C A E S A R " likewise appear
1 2 1 3
under Claudius, and T I . A V . and T I . C. A . are found on coins o f the same reign. I t
is his name that the whole group undoubtedly represents. Equally unsuccessful is an
attribution o f I M P . and A V G . to the campaigns o f 15 and 12-7 B . C . 14 1
Both IMP. *
16 1 7 1 8
and IMP. are found as late as Claudius; and A V G . and A V . as late as Caligula.
10
CAESAR, found on coins o f Tiberius, is little, i f at all, earlier.
schen Mun^kunde, 1, p. 203), Strasbourg (mus.), which decisively confirms this conclusion (e.g.
in Spain (seven from Spanish source seen in the stamp of TIB. is roughly circular),
trade in LondQn), Syracuse (Orsi, Notqie degli 5 BMC. Imp. p. xxix n. 3.
Scavi, 11, 1905, p. 383); two at Cagliari, almost Roman asses (Leiden, found at Mook), Divus
6

certainly of Sardinian provenance (as D. Levi Augustus (BMC. Imp. p. xxxvi; BM, own col-
informs me). Mme Christodoulopoulos states that lection).
a specimen at Athens is likely to be from a Greek Roman asses (BMC. Imp. p. xxxvi; Mainz),
7

source. Pieces at Constantine (Hinglais, Recueil de Sestertius (Utrecht, van Hoorn, Gids, Abb. 29.
8

la Soc. arch, du dip. de Constantine, xxxvin, 1904, 14), Germanicus (BMC. Imp. I.e.), Agrippa as
pp. i6f.) were very probably found in Africa. (Berlin), Tiberius (Mainz).
1
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxix. 9 Germanicus (Berlin), Agrippa as (BM); TIB.
2
Even on the Rhine the average proportion of C. IMP. on Germanicus (Cologne),
uncountermarked to countermarked specimens is 1 0
Berlin, Bonn. " Berlin, Rennes.
approximately 5:3. I Z
Utrecht; also Caligula (Berlin), Agrippa
3
E.g. at S. Appiano di Val d' Elsa (Milani, (Berlin), Nero Drusus (Cologne).
Notiiie degli Scavi, 1938, p. 112). Berlin.
1 3
Mattingly, l.c.
1 4

4
It may be confidently assumed that no single 1 5
Claudius (Leiden), Caligula (Bonn).
one of these stamps can have continued to be 1 6
Claudius (Rennes), Antonia (Berlin), Nero
affixed over a period comprising more than one Drusus (Cologne).
principate. There are many varieties, and each 1 7
Caligula (Mainz), Germanicus (Bonn), Tiberius
must have served for one special occasion: many (BMC. Imp. p. xxxii), Drusus jun. (ibid.).
of them have a distinctive shape or orthography 1 8
Agrippa as (Bonn). Tiberius (Berlin).
1 0
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M 9 5

Thus, contrary to the accepted view, the vast majority o f extant countermarks are
completely irrelevant to the principate o f Augustus, and may therefore be ignored i n
its study. I t w i l l be shown elsewhere that the countermarking o f official coinage by
colonial ethnics (p. 299), legionary numbers (p. 117), and devaluation marks, is equally 1

alien to the period. A few Augustan categories remain, which suggest that, whereas
there was no limit w i t h i n the Empire to the circulation o f the Roman aes, its introduc-
tion into a newly conquered territory, such as Germany, needed—probably only for
2
a short time —the governor's stamp o f approval, since otherwise i t would not be
3
willingly accepted at more than its metal value b y the inhabitants. Countermarks o f
4
P. Varus i n the new province are almost certain: T . Q . F . (or R..?)5 also suggests the
name o f a governor. C O N S T . suggests one o f the constitutiones by which an equestrian
6

7
procurator, such as those o f Rhaetia and Noricum, could legislate even as early as
8 0
this date. I M P . A V G . , which otherwise stands alone, may perhaps be referred to a
similar occasion.
Another exceptional countermark, FN, which appears on an as o f Volusus
Valerius Messalla (6 B.C.), and—misinterpreted as F A N . — n o t only on asses o f
10

L u g d u n u m " and Nemausus," but also (a very unusual feature) on a denarius o f Rome
(16 B.C.), can be elucidated b y comparison w i t h F-A-T, a countermark, apparently
13

contemporary w i t h issue, on Nemausan asses o f Claudius (p. 78). F is a rare initial

14

letter, and the pellets on these asses suggest that N commences a new w o r d : this
monogram is used frequently for AV(gustus, - f ) . * Nothing appears to satisfy the
1

conditions but F(iscus) AV(gusti). I f this is accepted, the T can suitably stand for
T(arraconensis), since there is every reason to believe that such 'clearing houses that
balanced their accounts w i t h the treasury (the aerarium)' 16
existed at this time i n other
17
central camps or provincial capitals, as they did at L u g d u n u m ; they had not yet been
18
centralised i n Rome as i n Flavian times. I t only concerns our purpose here to say that
the countermark F(iscus) AV(gusti) on the Augustan issues is probably not itself o f
Tarraconensis, but o f some area where Roman silver is not yet current. Since the upper
limit for its affixation is 6 B.C., i t is tempting to assign i t to a base for the Danubian or

1 6
DVP(ondius) is found under Claudius (BMC. Ibid. p. xxxiii.
Imp. p. xxxvi), and AS under Caligula (ibid.). Also 7
Cf. Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 215.
in this category is SE(mw), not earlier than Caligula 8
E.g. CIL. 7124, pace Jors, PW. iv, 1106.
Q
(in trade, Brussels), which is wrongly attributed to BMC. Imp. pp. xxxiii, xxxvii.
'Segovia or Segontia' by de Saulcy (MManges de 1 0
Ibid. Aug. 242 bis.
Numismatujue, 1, pp. 113 ff.). 1 1
Ibid. p. xxxiii.
* Since many uncountermarked pieces are always " Ibid. p. xlii.
found also. 1 3
Ibid. Aug. 94.
3 1 4
Cf. Bolin, Deutsches Archdologisches Institut, Paris, own collection.
Romisck-Germaniscke Kommission 19 Bericht 1929, 5
y y
J
E.g. BMC. Imp. p. xxxii.
p. 134. 1 6
Frank, JRS. 1933, p. 144.
4
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxix. 1 7
Habel, PW. 11, 425 ff.
5 Ibid. p. xxxvi. 1 8
Rostovtzeff, PW. vi, 2385 f.
96 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

Rhenish campaigns o f 6 B.C - A . D . 6. The unusual stamp on the denarius is thus ex-
1

plained by the Germans' known distrust o f the new silver, and preference for that o f
the Republic*
Countermarks o f the trishdes and other symbols 3 must be allotted to Sicily on
4
grounds o f provenance. I t cannot, however, be maintained that they were necessary
for the circulation o f Roman coinage i n this province,* since this is found without these
stamps (p. 92) and was even imitated there. A clue to the purpose o f these counter-
6

marks can be derived from the fact that no coins are stamped except sestertii and
dupondiiJ The bronze as, which had been universally current i n Sicily for more than
half a century (p. 27), and which was not altered for the few Augustan local currencies
(pp. 195, 237), weighed little more than half o f the Roman copper as and the bronze as
of the Western cities. The readjustments which this anomaly necessitated are hidden
from us: but i t is probable that, even i f the light bronze as was decreed equal to the
heavier copper as (p. 300), the higher denominations o f the Roman series, i n a metal
reputed to be more valuable, acquired an enhanced value unless stamped to assure a
relationship w i t h the Sicilian as. The denarius was everywhere current: but since
orichalcum, bronze, and copper coins were now all fiduciary, their relationship to i t
could be arranged arbitrarily, as convenience and the confidence or suspicions o f the
population dictated. Presumably such sestertii and dupondii as were not stamped could
be exchanged w i t h Sicilian asses at a favourable rate; but i t is hardly possible, i n this
case, that only sixteen of the latter went to the denarius. The solution o f such economic
problems appears to be beyond reach.
The Roman aes coinage was primarily intended for the West. Specimens are rarely
8
found as far as Asia, but i t appears that here certain limitations existed. For example,
the countermark o f a capricorn,9 found also on official coins o f Parium (p. 113) and
10
local issues at Pitane, Apamea and Amisus, may have regulated the relationship o f the
Roman aes to the currencies o f north-western Asia Minor. I n the western provinces^
however, it circulated in Augustus* s time without hindrance. Its adaptation to the coinage
of Sicily necessitated countermarks, and likewise its introduction among peoples new
to the Roman Empire and to its principle o f token-coinage; elsewhere the Roman aes
was the staple currency of the West, and was accepted uncountermarked i n all parts of it.
The evidence from the ' imperial' provinces makes i t quite clear that the S(enatus)
C(pnsultum) which sanctioned the coinage was valid for these also. The next section
w i l l describe another large series, w i t h the same mark, which circulated chiefly i n

Syme, CAH. x, pp. 365

1
ff. 6
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxiii.
* Ullmann, Philological Quarterly, 1, 1922, 7 Including a copper dupondius of Plotius; cf. •
pp. 311 ff. Walters, NC. 1915, pp. 325 ff.
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxx n. 4.
3 8
E.g. Istanbul mus., and in trade.
Cf. Bahrfeldt, Blatter fur Munifreunde, 1926,
4
9 BMC. Imp. p. xxxviii.
p. 396. Vienna, Oxford (NC. 1935, p. 134) and Karls-
1 0

As Scramuzza, ES. 111, p. 359.

5
ruhe respectively.
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M 9 7

Syria. The so-called ' senatorial * treasury, the aerarium, was certainly not limited i n
1
scope to Italy and the 'senatorial' provinces. Frank has recently pointed out that i t
2 3
even received the Egyptian revenues and paid the armies of the State, besides officially
providing for the upkeep o f Augustus's o w n curae.* The coins weigh the balance
heavily in favour of his view that its range was universal. N o central fiscus yet existed,*
since there was no dyarchy to necessitate i t ; the res privata o f the princeps was theo-
6

retically irrelevant for administration, though often used to contribute to the aerariumJ
The provincial fisci, although used extensively as repositories, were merely depart-8

ments o f the aerariumf I t is therefore inaccurate to say that this was exclusively
'senatorial'. I t was the only Roman treasury. The senate had lost control o f i t first to
Caesar, and then i n 44 to A n t o n y , " and very shortly afterwards to Octavian;" Brutus
10

and Cassius seized two o f its provincial fisci early i n 43, and thereafter i t was entirely
13

dominated first b y the t r i u m v i r s and then b y the auctoritas o f Augustus. * I n 23 he

14 1

felt this to be strong enough for the abandonment o f the consulship (p. 437). I t is
noteworthy that the headship o f the aerarium was simultaneously transferred from
praefecti chosen b y the senate to two praetors, whose appointment b y lot indicated
16

that the real control was exercised b y another. I t was the princeps who supervised the
17

18
central staff of accountants who managed i t , and i t is highly significant that the output
o f the supposedly' senatorial' Roman aes, otherwise regular, ceases during his absences
from Rome. Some pieces omit the symbol SC, just as a few official aurei and denarii
10 ao

I
JRS. 1933, pp. 143 ff.; cf. also Stevenson, ibid. 1 4
Cf. Motzo, Ann. della Facolta difilosqfia e lettere
1936, p. 511. [But see Last, JRS. 1944, pp. 58 f.] delta R. Univ. di Cagliari, 1933; Syme, RR. p. 131.
* Velleius 11, 39. 2; cf. P. W. Duff, Personality Cf. Syme, RR. p. 171.
1 3

in Roman Private Law, p. 57; Grimm, Zapiski S. Cf. Siber, Abh. Leipzig, 42, in, 1934, p. 15.
1 4

Peterburgskago Univ. LV, 1900, pp. 109 ff. '* Cf. Strack, BJ. cxn, 1904, p. 437; von Pre-
3
Frank, l.c. p. 144 n. 1; Stevenson, RPA. p. 155. merstein, p. 192.
4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 79; cf. Stevenson, CAH. x, Tac. Ann. xm, 29; for praefecti, cf. Suet. Aug.
1 6

p. 205; Jullian, TP. p. 75. •36, Dio LIII, 2. 1.

5 Cf. Humbert, Finances che^ les romains, p. 195; Cf. Hammond, pp. 157ff.etc.
1 7

Cardinali, Augustus (1938), pp. 177 f. Last, ap. Rice Holmes, Architect, 11, p. 178, and
1 8

6
Willers, Geschichte, p. 189, correcting Momra- JRS. xxvni, 1938, p. 214; cf. Siber, l.c. p. 14.
sen, M{w, p. 745; id. St.R. n , p. 1026.
3
Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xcvi: 20-19 and
1 0

7
RG. 17. Duff (l.c. p. 59) points out that certain 15-14 B.C. The same is true of the even more
sections of the res privata were habitually devoted jealously guarded gold and silver.
to public purposes, but only from a feeling of moral Cf. Gnecchi, R.it. 1890, pp. 353 ff. for later
2 0

obligation. There was no confusion, as implied by examples. The omission of the formula on the first
Stevenson, RPA. p. 119. coins struck in 23 (BMC. Imp. p. 28) shows, not that
8
Cf. Last,/ftS. xxvni, 1938, p. 214, correcting Augustus * probably first thought of partial control'
Cardinali, l.c. pp. 176 f. (ibid. p. xvi)—since he already possessed complete
9 Cf. Syme, RR. p. 410. control—but that an experimental issue was made
1 0
Cf. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, 111, which did not adequately represent the component
p. 44. elements of the respublica, or, alternatively, that the
I I
Cf. Frank, ES. 1, p. 340. senatus consultum had not yet been formally passed.
D
98 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B.C.—A.D. 14
1
include i t : Pink's description o f that formula as 'a mere sign without legal i m -
portance'* is understandable i n so far as SC does not make the aes issues any more
'senatorial' than the gold and silver.3
This financial situation is entirely i n accordance w i t h the new position o f the senate
in the State. I t now preceded the people i n the formula expressing the res puilica;*
it had received additional dignities and functions;5 i n particular, its advisory senatus
consulta were now, i n practice i f not i n theory (p. 108), given the force o f law, and,
6

like the coinage which bore their sign, were valid i n 'senatorial' and 'imperial' pro-
7
vinces alike. The methods by which theprinceps controlled the senate, no less than its
treasury, w i l l be exemplified by further official coinages (p. i i o ) , and defined, i n con-
nection w i t h further evidence, i n a later chapter (p. 446). Meanwhile, the present
interpretation o f the functions of the senate can be corroborated b y further SC coinages
in 'imperial' provinces.

2. EASTERN COINAGE WITH S C

A number o f official series, much misunderstood, obtained a wide circulation i n the

East during the principate o f Augustus: they bear on the reverse the uniform type o f a
wreath, i n which are the letters SC, A V G V S T V S or C A . The coinage w i t h SC,- a
'sort o f Eastern counterpart' o f the 'senatorial' aes that has just been discussed, was
8

the first to appear and w i l l be dealt w i t h first. I t is traditionally associated w i t h

Antioch i n Syria,* where the bulk o f the coinage w i t h this type, continuing until the
10
third century, was undoubtedly struck; but no notice has been taken o f sharp dis-
tinctions o f style, which occur i n the early years o f the principate. These suggest a
new interpretation.
I . The earliest coin o f the series is a dupondius (cf. p. 91) w i t h the inscription
KAIZAPOZ ZEBAZTOY, accompanied b y a laureate head o f Augustus to right (with
lituus) (PL I I I , 15). This recalls the portrait on an official tetradrachm," attributed
11

b y Mattingly 3 to Syria or Pergamum, after 27 B.C., and b y Sydenham to Syria, after

J 14

Cf. Mattingly, l.c. p. ci n. 5; also p. 106 no. 656, {BMC. 49), one of the client-kings who are ex-
1

p. clxxxvii. plicitly assigned by Strabo (xvn, 840) to the ad-

2
Transactions of the International Numismatic ministration of the princeps.
Congress of 1936, p. 241; cf. Klio, xxix, 1936, 8
Mattingly, RC. p. 197.
pp. 226 f. 9 Cf. Mommsen, M\w. p. 718, etc. Rice Holmes's
A reason for its general limitation to the aes will reference to Antioch in Caria {Architect, 11, p. 64) is
3

be suggested by an official Spanish issue (p. 120). presumably a misprint.

Cf. Gardthausen 11, 1. 2, p. 306; Mommsen,
4 1 0
Cf. Wruck, Die Syriscke Proviniialprdgung von
Hermes, 11, 1867, p. 262. Augustus bis Trajan, p. 5.
Cf. Stevenson, CAH. x, pp. 159 ff. etc.
5 1 1
Milan {Cat. 457), Berlin, own coll. (Wruck, l.c.
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 410; Arangio-Ruiz, Augustus no. 13).
(1938), p. 123, etc. » BMC. Imp. Aug. 700.
7
It is particularly significant that the formula 1 3
BMC. Imp. p. 113; cf. p. 112 n.
SC even appears on the coinage of Agrippa I I 1 4
NC. 1920, p. 33.
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M 9 9

c. 23/22. Dismissal o f the aes coin as a ' h y b r i d ' is impracticable, since such a Greek
legend -does not appear on any coin w i t h this head; there are no signs o f barbarity i n
style. The portrait is not like those on the earliest silver coins attributed to Antioch
o f c. 20-19 *
B a I
The official tetradrachm, which i t resembles, cannot be confidently
assigned to any m i n t : even i f i t could, i t would not be necessary for the aes issue to be
a product o f the same mint, although the likeness is very close. The style o f the latter
suggests the province o f Asia rather than Syria. I t may be added that i t is considerably
2
alloyed both w i t h t i n and w i t h lead, while pieces o f known Antiochene origin only
3
contain a trace o f the latter component. However, there is, o f course, no reason w h y
a mint should not alter its alloys. Wherever this initial issue was made, a suitable
occasion for the inauguration o f such an important series was the visit o f Augustus to
the East i n 22-19 * > during the years immediately following the commencement o f
B a

the reformed Roman aes coinage. 4

I I . Some pieces5 w i t h the legend IMP. A V G V S T . T R . P O T . (which is found on all

the dupondii o f SC issues) show a divergency o f type: the wreath on the reverse appears
to be o f oak- instead o f laurel-leaves. Moreover, this group exhibits a portrait (PL I I I ,
17) which is identical w i t h the highly distinctive heads on coins attributed beyond any
doubt, for reasons o f provenance, to Cyprus (e.g. Pi. I V , 8) (p. 143). The large flat die
is another feature shared w i t h these pieces, whose upper limit is the year 12 B.C. The
portrait o f the present coin, like those o f the other Cypriot issues, somewhat resembles
those o f Roman denarii o f 13 B.C. I t is interesting to note that provenance? likewise
6

supports the attribution b y Bosch o f SC issues o f Caracalla and his successors to

8
Cyprus, rather than Antioch.
I I I . A further issue ( P i . I l l , 18) has an individual style, and a truncation and style
0

o f portraiture which may be derived from Lugdunese denarii™ A variant (Pi. I l l , 20)
bears a countermark." The general appearance o f this group indicates Syrian w o r k -
manship, being particularly suggestive o f coins o f Damascus; there is, however, no
resemblance to those o f Antioch. Here, again, i t is significant that Damascus is one o f
the very few mints whose third-century issues include pieces w i t h S C . "
I V . A dupondius (IMP. A V G V S T . T R . P O T . ) and an or ( A V G V S T . T R . P O T . )
1 3 1 4

(Pi. I l l , 19) combine w i t h a truncation found on late Augustan silver o f Antioch a

peculiar style and lettering, whose distinctive features are exactly paralleled on certain
1
Wruck, l.c. 1. * Spectrogram 16. 9 Vatican, own coll. Spectrogram 36.
3
Ibid. 22, 37, 38. E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 500.
1 0

4
There seems no reason to adopt so late a Paris, own coll. Spectrogram 22.
1 1

terminus post quern as A.D. 5, as in Milan Cat. p. 47. " Mommsen, Berichte iiber die Verhandlungen
5 BM, Milan. der k. sacks. Ges. der Wissenschaften Leipzig,
6
BMC. Imp. Aug. 100 ff. pk.-h. Kl. 111, 1851, pp. 209 f. Cf. also a coin at
7 Westholm, Temples of Soli, p. 135. Amman mus., Bellinger, NNM. L X X X I , 1938, p. 32.
8 1 3
Of this class is probably a Cypriot find de- Vienna.
scribed in the Antiquaries' Journal, X I I I , 1933, Vienna (Wruck, l.c. 10); Hess sale (1933),
1 4

p. 107. 305.
ioo COINAGE BY AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

coins inscribed C A (p. 106) which have been found i n Syria. Thus, like I I I , this joint
1

issue is probably Syrian, but again there is no stylistic similarity whatever to the known
issues o f Antioch.
V . The first of the latter is an as (Pi. I l l , 21), whose portrait is modelled on Roman
2

denarii o f 18 B . C . ; the current attribution is confirmed by the recent discovery o f a

3

4
specimen on the site o f Antioch.
V I . A number of asses o f less careful or semi-barbaric style 5 appear to be modelled
on this. A m o n g these are some w i t h distinctive fabric and execution (Pi. I l l , 16), and 6

w i t h a truncation found on Antiochene tetradrachms o f c. 20-19 * * B c 7

V I I . A dupondius has a portrait and truncation resembling those on Antiochene

%

tetradrachms o f 4-3 B.C.,9 and also on local coins o f the same mint w i t h APXIEPATIKON
ANTIOXEIZ (p. 376). The attribution o f this piece to Antioch is confirmed by the pre-
sence o f monograms EA., EAEY. (Pi. I l l , 22)," representing iAaritepcc. Antioch was
10

a free c i t y , " even after the employment from c. A.D. 5 o f the incompatible title urjTp6-
•n*oAis,(p. 398).
V I I I . Another dupondius (Pi. I l l , 23) has a similar portrait, but lacks the mono-
13

14
gram: its attribution to the same mint is probable. A variety o f this t y p e appears to
be influenced by the style o f portraiture employed b y denarii o f Lugdunum after
c. 2 B.C. * 1

Here, then, are issues from a number o f mints, not only Antioch but at least one and
16
probably two more i n Syria ( I I I , I V ) — t h e pivot o f the Eastern strategic system —
besides others i n Cyprus ( I I ) , and perhaps Asia ( I ) . The series is inaugurated i n
c. 22-19 * > B
i a s s u e s
continue at intervals throughout the principate o f Augustus.
The corresponding issues o f Tiberius show similar strong divergencies o f style and
fabric, which confirm the view o f a multiplicity o f mints (e.g. Pi. I l l , 24,25); more-
17

over, i t has been shown that even i n the third century branches existed i n Cyprus
and Syria (p. 99). Thus the present interpretation o f the Augustan issues is rich i n
analogies. But that they all contributed to a single general scheme is demonstrated b y
a regular distinction i n weight between the pieces w i t h A V G V S T . T R . P O T . (average
c. 150-151 grains) and those w i t h IMP. A V G V S T . T R . P O T . (average c. 240 grains). 18

1
Wruck points out that the four denominations postulated b y Macdonald ? would
1
Istanbul mus. Paris: Monogram 5, Spectrogram 37.
1 1

2
Wruck, l.c. 9: his illustration gives a somewhat Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 263.
1 2

incorrect impression of the coin, which is well pre- Wruck, l.c. 11: Cambridge, Santamaria sale
1 3

served at Marseille and Vienna. (1926). 35; variety at Florence.

3
BMC. Imp. Aug. 51 ff. Vatican, Ball sale 29. 1131.
1 4

4
Mrs F . Waag6, of the Committee for the Exca- 5 E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 519.
L

vation of Antioch, has sent me a cast of this. Cf. Anderson, CAH. x, pp. 279 ff.
1 6

5 6 1 7
E.g. BM. Gotha, Milan. E.g. BM, Vienna, Berlin show at least four
7
Wruck, l.c. 1. Wruck, l.c. 12.
8
principal varieties; cf. also Annuaire de la SocUti
9
Wruck, l.c. 4. francaise de numismatique, 1884, p. 46.
1 0
Glasgow: Hu. m, p. 150. 69. Wruck, l.c. p. 36 f.
1 8
NC 1904, pp. 105 ff.
1 9
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M IOI
have been i n practice indistinguishable. The former are o f bronze w i t h much t i n
but very little lead, and are clearly depreciated asses; the others are not sestertii*
1 2

but rather dupondii* whose high weights are explained 5 by the inferiority to orichal-
cum o f their metallic composition, which is, at Antioch, o f a tin alloy indistinguishable
from that o f the asses. These issues, like many others, appear to infringe the spirit
6

o f the Lex Iulia peculates, which ordained ne quis in aes publicum quid indet neve
immisceat...quo id peius fiat;i but this clause left the coining authorities much
latitude.
The explanation given above o f the imperial and national character o f the formula
SC (p. 97) removes what has been considered a serious difficulty, namely its occur-
rence on these issues i n t h e ' imperial* province o f Syria. I t is not necessary to postulate
8
special control by the Roman senate, much less—on such coins as are Antiochene—by
10
the senate o f Antioch;9 nor is a 'polite fiction' the correct explanation for what was
a natural emphasis on the senior partner o f the res publica w i t h which Augustus
identified himself. The invariable T R . P. likewise illustrates both thepopulus Romanus,
and the cooperation o f theprinceps whose portrait appears ( p . 446). Thus two sides o f
a small coin compendiously expressed to the East the Roman commonwealth. The
mints were indeed official," and the Roman financial authorities i n the provinces were
responsible for their operation.
Mintage appears usually to have been irrelevant for the circulation o f particular
groups, though group I I is likely to have been generally limited to Cyprus, and
group I V seems to be Syrian i n provenance." The most widely current was V I I ,
13 14 1
which has been found i n Bithynia and Phrygia, and was imitated i n Asia Minor. *
16
Coins o f one o f the eight Augustan groups have appeared also i n Galatia and
1 18 10 20
even i n Rhaetia, ? and were copied i n Moesia, Dacia, and probably Germany.
21 22
Those o f later rulers circulated occasionally as far as Cologne and Basel to the

1
Spectrogram 38. 1 0
Wruck, Lc.
2
For the variability of this denomination at all 11
It did not 'pose as a branch of the Roman mint'
times, see below, p. 300. ^ (Milne,/iW. 1938, P. 97).
3
Pace Mommsen, Mpv. p. 718. 12
E.g. Istanbul; one or more(?) from Lebanon.
4
Perhaps equal to only one Roman as: cf. Bab. 1 3
In trade, Istanbul.
Kiddush. 12 a, M. Maaser Scheni, iv, 8 (Heichel- 14
Do.; possibly also in Pisidia (NC. 1914,
heim, ES. iv, pp. 212, 216) at least for second pp. 312 ff.).
century. 5 Istanbul.
x

5 Wruck, l.c. 1 6
Found at Adalia and Yalvac, (Istanbul mus.).
6s
Spectrograms 37, 22. J
7 Found at Giubiasco (Zurich mus.).
7 Dig. 48. 13; cf. Weiss, PW. X I I , 2364; 1 8
Sofia.
Mommsen, l.c. p. 221. 1 9
Zagreb (bought at Bucarest).
8
Dieudonn£, Milanges numismatiques, ie sir. 11, 2 0
Krosch, BJ. 11, 1843, P- 75-
(1919), p. 131. 2 1
Prinz Philipp von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha coll.
9
Bouchier, A Short History of Antioch, p. 311 (Hamburger sale [1928} 420).
n. 1, seems to suggest this. 2 2
Elagabalus found at Kaiseraugst (Basel mus.).
102 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B . C - A . D . 14
1 2 3
west, Tell Umar and D u r a to the east, and Egypt to the south, and were copied
4
by Parthian monarchs.
There are a few countermarks on the SC issues o f Augustus which, owing to their
non-appearance on the coins o f later rulers, may perhaps be assigned to the same princi- -
pate. For example, a plough 5 perhaps sets apart a dupondius of group V I I for the use o f
6
the colony o f Berytus, and a crescent, also on V I I , either for one o f the Greek cities that
7 8
employs i t as badge, or for circulation i n Cilicia. Several obscure symbols? and mono-
10
grams are also affixed as countermarks. But i n general this series has, i n the East, the
same wide circulation as the* Roman aes in the West." Yet, in spite of the variety of mints,
its quantity was insufficient for the economicJieeds of the numerous Eastern provinces,
and i t had to be supplemented b y a number o f other issues. O n these a significant
formula, hitherto unrecognised, supplies the key to the executive methods by which
such coinages were produced.

3. A V G V S T V S , C A
The coins w i t h either A V G V S T V S or C A , i n a wreath, occupying the reverse field,
show remarkable divergencies, which defy all attempts either to fit them into a single
12
homogeneous series or to divide them into two separate groups according to their
13
reverse inscription. As, however, i n the two series w i t h SC that have been discussed,
it is at least possible to distinguish a central series.

I . Asiatic groups
( A ) This consists o f sestertii * w i t h A V G V S T V S (bare head to right) and C A ( i n
1

laurel-wreath); dupondii * (Pi. I l l , 26) w i t h the same legends but a corona navaiis;
1
and
asses 16
(Pi. I l l , 27) w i t h CAESAR (same head) and A V G V S T V S (in laurel-wreath). The
1 8
Trajan (McDowell, Preliminary Report upon Unpublished provincial coins of Tiberius
the Excavations at Tell Umar, Iraq, p. 59). (Munich, Athens, Istanbul), which are found in this
2
Claudius, Nero, Vespasian (Bellinger, Dura, region and resemble issues of Aegeae, have the
iv, p. 268). crescent as a type.
3 1 0
California Univ. Museum (Berkeley), found at 9 E.g. BM. E.g. Paris, Istanbul.
Tebtunis (Milne, JEA. xxi, 1935, p. 213); this may 1 1
S on a light as of (8) (Berlin) probably =
be of the Cypriot branch-mint. SE(mis) at Rome and Lugdunum (pace de Saulcy,.
4
Berlin, own collection. It is interesting to note Melanges de Numismatique, 1, pp. 113 ff.) and is
that a local series of Augustus at Antioch (p. 376) post-Augustan.
closely resembles group V H ; no doubt in conse- 1 2
E.g. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. pp. 115 ff.;
quence of this resemblance, it had a very wide Laffranchi, R.it. xxx, 1917, p. 255 n.
circulation, even bearing a countermark (L. X V — 1 3
Grueber, BMCR. 11, p. 546 n. 1—ignoring
Zagreb) of a type otherwise found exclusively on nine-tenths of the material.
official coins (Wruck, I.e., Claudius). 1 4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 713; Copenhagen, Hamburger
5 Istanbul. Athens. 6
sale (1925) 518.
7
E.g. Byzantium, Magnesia Ioniae, Magydus, x
5 BMC. Imp. Aug. 721, Leningrad.
1 6
Colbasa, Cydonia, Nicopolis, Marcianopolis use it Paris, Stockholm, in trade (Paris), Prague,
as a type. New York, Avignon, Nimes.
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M I 0 3

asses are o f copper, and the other two denominations o f orichalcum (p. 104). I n each
case the portraits are closely imitated from an unusual series o f denarii w i t h a cow as
reverse type (Pi. I l l , 28). Several variants, also from this original, occur i n the same
1

three denominations.* They include a number o f C A sestertii, practically all differing

slightly; the finest o f these (Pi. I l l , 29) is o f beautiful workmanship. There is also
3 4

an A V G V S T V S coin w i t h the die o f an ay struck on a sestertius flan ( P i . I l l , 30).*

(B) A closely connected g r o u p has portraits copied from a series o f denarii w i t h
6

8
the types o f wreath? and temple o f Jupiter Olympius ( I O V I O L V . ) . The latest ex-
amples o f the aes* (Pi. I V , 2) show a long line o f brow and nose suggesting the
10
influence o f products o f the mint at Lugdunum.
Mattingly states that both the Eastern groups o f denarii that have been cited as
prototypes" should be reattributed from 27 B . C . " to c. 21-19 B.C., when Augustus
13 14 1
visited the East; Gabrici and Rostovtzeff agree, and Graindor * disagrees. Syden-
h a m and Laffranchi ? prefer a date o f c. 17 B.C., which is particularly probable i n view
16 1

of Agrippa's return to the East i n 17 : l 8

the corona nayalis which appears on the dupondii
10 20
was his special attribute. Citing the cow o f M y r o n and the completion o f the temple
of Olympian Zeus, Gabrici and Rostovtzeff attribute the denarii to Athens. Graindor
21

does not accept this, and Laffranchi prefers Lycia as origin for the I O V I O L V . , and
22
Phrygia for the cow type. But such attributions, based on portrait resemblances on
1
BMC. Imp. Aug. 663. Some of the portraits 7 BMC. Imp. Aug. 669.
are closely akin to the Munich and Prima Porta Ibid. 666. Miss Newby's reading IAN. C L V .
8

heads (cf. Gabrici, Augustus [1938], p. 384, pis. I I , (p. 48), instead of I O V I OLV., is an error copied
IV). from Cohen, Description historique des monnaies
2
E.g. dupondius:—Prague; cf. as:—Turin, Vati- frappees sous V empire romain, I, p. 79.110; Boutkow-
can =BMC. Imp. Aug. 734, also 735; Leningrad, ski, DN. 1, p. 327.717.
Paris, Oxford (NC. 1939, p. 216). 9 E.g. New York (3), Gotha, Marseille.
3
sestertii: Milan (Sacchi, Historia, ix, 1935, pi. E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 443 ff.
1 0

p. 485, cat. 438), BMC. Imp. Aug. 716, Trau coll. Ibid. 663, 666-9.
11

sale 231, Hague, Leningrad, New York, Narbonne, As BMC. Imp. p. 108.
1 2

Toulouse, Nier coll., Hamburger sale (1925) 517, Rendiconti della R. Acc. di Napoli, 1900,
13

Vierordt coll. sale 663, Schulmann sale 78 (1928) pp. 59 ff.; id. Studi e matertali di archeologia e,
115, Santamaria sale (1926) 61, Hess sale (1931) (Otto numismatica, II, 1902, pp. 163 ff.; id. Augustus
coll.), (1932) 242 (Walters coll.), Hirsch sale (1905) (1938), p. 386.
4516 (Rhusopoulos coll.), Naville sale vm (1924) Festschrift 0. Hirschfelds (1903), p. 303.
14

558 (Bement coll.), Cahn sale (1913) 986 (Oertel Athenes sous Auguste, pp. 36 ff.
coll.), Ars Classica sale xvn (1934) 1185. NC. 1920, p. 40.
16

4
Naples; Hess sale 211. 242 (retouched). 7 R.it. 1916, p. 294.
J

5 Oxford. Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 142.

1 8

sestertii'. Prague (pi. I V , 1); Miinzhandlung

6
Cf. Steiner, BJ. cxiv, 1906, pp. 36 f.
1 0

Basel sale 8. 446 (? retouched), Naples, Budapest,

2 0
Cf. E . Babelon, Gazette archiologique, vm,
Florence, Ars Classica sale xvi (1933) 1547, Santa- 1883, pp. 91 ff.
maria sale (1928) 19 (Larizza coll.). dupondius: Cf. Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen, 1, pp. 669 ff.
2 1

Berlin (modified), asses: BMC. Imp. Aug. 731, Ibid.; cf. Milan Cat. p. 45. 437; Bahrfeldt,
8 2

Vatican, own collection, Ball sale vi (1931) 975. Miinistudien 1, 1923, p. 125.
104 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C - A . D . 14
1
local coins, are particularly dangerous and inconclusive, since the official silver was
universally current (p. 122).
x
However, Asia must be the home o f these silver coins, as Sydenham sees. A variant
denarius o f the I O V I O L V . class* has a portrait closely resembling those on the large
series w i t h A R M E N I A C A P T A (c. 20-18 B.C.)3 and on a dated official tetradrachm 4

of 19-18 B.C., which is connected w i t h a series plausibly assigned b y Mattingly,5 on the

6
grounds o f an 'Altar* type, to Ephesus. Probably, therefore, the I O V I O L V . series is
Ephesian also. The denarii w i t h the cow have portraits w i t h a considerable similarity
to these, but there is a distinct difference i n technique: since this divergency is
maintained on the aes groups, i t is permissible to assume the existence o f two mints,
rather than merely two hands, for aes and silver alike. A n investigation o f the com-
position o f the aes produces results i n accordance w i t h this view. The coins w i t h the
long brow, some examples o f which are closely allied to the I O V I O L V . silver, are
7
shown b y the spectrograph to be alloyed w i t h a percentage o f t i n ; the series modelled
on the ' c o w ' denarii is divided between the correct official metals o f orichalcum* and
copper.9 Here is a powerful argument i n favour o f the production o f the aes b y at
least two mints. I t must also influence attribution o f the denarii. Since the I O V I O L V .
denarii were probably issued at Ephesus, i t is likely that those w i t h the cow, and their
corresponding aes, were Pergamene.
Nor is i t probable that the aes mints i n Asia Minor were two only:
(C) A n as o f variant style (PL I V , 3), whose portrait is imitated from Ephesian (?)
10

denarii o f c. 20 B . C . , " is o f copper alloyed w i t h about 20 per cent o f tin and not much
less o f lead.**
( D ) Another (Pi. I V , 4 ) , o f less competent execution, also contains these con-
13

stituents, but i n much smaller quantities.

I t is not probable that such widely divergent metallic compositions were produced
by the same workshop within the short period to which iconographic considerations
1 4
assign these pieces. N o r are even the weights uniform: an A V G V S T V S weighs as
much as 213*5 grains* and may be a dupondius. Thus styles, alloys and weights alike all
indicate that interpretations o f C A as a local ethnic, Colonia Augusta * or Caesarea 1

16 17 18
Augusta (Panias) or Caesarea A r e a or Caesaraugusta (Tarraconensis), are ex-
1
Cf. Gabrici, Augustus (1938), p. 388 n. 1. Own collection: Spectrogram 18.
1 3

* BMC. Imp. Aug. 665. Ibid. 675 etc.

3
r BMC. Imp. Aug. 731.
1 4

4
Ibid. 703. 5 BMC. Imp. p. cxix. *5 Attribution to one or more of die Coloniae
6
Ibid. Aug. 694. Spectrogram 20.
7
Augustae is ruled out by the absence of any such
8
Ibid. 32 (dupondius) 1 cf. chemical analysis city in Ionia, which was one of the principal centres
(sestertius), BMCR. 11, p. 546 n. 1. of the coinage.
9 Spectrogram 19; notin,minute traces of lead, Pellerin, Mdlanges, 1, p. 36; Eckhel, DN. 111,
1 6

iron, silver. p. 3 39; Stevenson, Dictionary of Roman Coins, p. 162.

1 0
Own collection, New York. de Sau\cy,Ann. de la Soc. de Num. 111,1868, p. 25 9.
1 7

11
E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 678, etc. 1 8
First refuted by Akerman, Numismatic Illustra-
1 2
Spectrogram 31. tions of the New Testament, p. 15.
 T H E BASES OF THE REFORM 105
ceedingly improbable. The circulation o f these issues gives a truer impression
o f their character. I t disposes finally, by its magnitude, not only o f interpreta-
1
tion as an ethnic, but also o f attribution to the Lycian League, o f the current
' solution C(ommune) A(siae)2
and o f the alternative C(pmmune) A(ckaiae).* Further-
more, i t shows that, as their joint presence i n the two principal Asian mint-groups has
suggested, the C A and A V G V S T V S series were intended for the same purposes. Coins
o f these two classes occur together i n numerous finds i n provincial Asia, Illyricum- 4

Pannonia,5 and Macedonia-Moesia; they were both imitated i n Pannonia. The as,
6 7

which might be expected, like nearly all asses elsewhere, to be far the most popular
8 10
denomination, has come to light also i n Rhaetia-Vindelicia,? Achaia, Bithynia,"
13 14 1
Pamphylia," Syria, and perhaps Cappadocia, and was imitated i n Bohemia. * More-
over, a barbaric A V G V S T V S type found near Bucarest, beyond the borders o f the
Empire (Pi. I V , 5 ) , is overstruck over a contemporary imitation o f one o f the moneyers'
16

coins. W e have already seen that the Roman issues were current at first i n the Lower
Danube region: this counterstruck piece indicates clearly that the Eastern series were
17 18
inaugurated to supersede them i n those parts. B r i t a i n and Gallia Narbonensis have
each revealed at least two C A specimens; but the limits o f the normal circulation o f the
issues w i t h C A and A V G V S T V S is fixed by their absence from Rhine finds. * Asses i n 1

poor condition or o f barbaric fabric bear the same Claudian stamps as the Roman aes;
20

C A occasionally have these also. A sestertius found i n European T u r k e y is counter-

21 M

1
Cf. Milan Cat. p. 45. 438-441. 7 Found on Danube (Vienna). Dupondius of
* Froehner, Milanges d'£pigraphie et d'Archeo- similar style at New York.
logic, xxn, p. 77; cf. Sydenham,NC. 1920, pp. 41 ff.; 8
Cf. Elmer, NZ. 1933, pp. 57, 61.
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxxv; Gabrici, Augustus 9 Found at Oberhausen (Augsburg mus.); cf.
(1938), p. 388 n. 1. Zeitsckrift des historiscken Vereihs fur Schwaben und
3
Laffranchi, JR.it. 1916, p. 293, mentions that this Neuburg, X L , 1914, p. 165.
1 0
would suit Gabrici's interpretation of the 'cow* Delos (Athens mus.); in trade (Athens).
denarii. 1 1
In trade, Istanbul.
4
A V G V S T V S : found at Sart (Bell, Sardis, xi, " Found at Adalia (Istanbul mus.).
pp. 47,427), Aezanis ((Javder H.) (BM), at Bergama 1 3
Lebanon (Istanbul mus.).
(Regling, Munifunde aus Pergamon, 1915), Lamp- Derek Maden (Milne, Annals ofArchaeology and
1 4

sak, Bandirma (in trade, Istanbul). C A : at Sart Anthropology, 111, 1910, p. 91). Prague mus.
(Bell, Sardis, I.e.), Priene, Manisa (Hill, NC. 1927, 1 6
Zagreb mus.; acquired at Bucarest.
p. 381), Bergama (Regling, I.e.), Izmir (Head, HN. 1 7
At Lewes (Lewes mus.) and Hayling Island
p. 786), Samos (Berlin). (Head, HN. p. 786).
1 8
5 A V G V S T V S : found, without countermarks, Narbonne, Toulouse. Others at Avignon,
at Novi Banovci and Mitrovica: one also at Bel- Marseille, and Nimes museums, and in the collection
grade, probably of local provenance (Elmer, Cat. of M. Nier, may or may not have been found in the
p. 36, cf. p. iv); C A : dupondii at Banostor, Osijek neighbourhood.
(Zagreb mus.). 1 9
E.g. none among 2718 copper at Neuss (Strack,
6
A V G V S T V S : found in N. Bulgaria (Sofia BJ. cxii, 1904, pp. 419^)-
mus.). C A : sestertii and dupondii at Aquae Calidae 2 0
Many at Zagreb mus.
2 1
(Sofia, Berlin, and notice in latter coll. from Dr E.g. at Vienna ( A V G ) .
Pick). » Istanbul.
io6 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C-A.D. 14
1
marked w i t h the horseman o f Thrace, probably for circulation i n that kingdom.
A dupondius o f Bulgarian provenance has the stamp TONZOY:* Tonsus was a tribu-
3 4
tary o f the Hebrus, and the river-god o f Hadrianopolis. That this stamp, like most
others, is post-Augustan is proved by its recurrence on coins o f Trajan.5

I I . Cypriot group
These ambitious central issues, emanating from Ephesus and other Asiatic mints,
were supplemented b y a number o f others whose divergent style, fabric, weight,
details and provenance indicate that they not only circulated, but were struck, i n a
number o f different provinces. One o f these varieties, an as w i t h I M P . A V G V S T .
6
T R . P O T . (laureate head to right) and A V G V S T . ( i n wreath) (Pi. I V , 8), W a s found
in Cyprus, and is identical i n style not only w i t h pieces known to be o f Cypriot
provenance? (p. 143), but w i t h the SC issue attributed to the same island (group I I
[p. 99], e.g. Pi. I l l , 17).

III. Syrian groups

W i t h the aid o f this certain analogy, i t is possible to detect a Syrian group o f mints,
represented b y three C A copper coins. ( A ) One o f these (Pi. I V , 6), an as, has the 8

same legend A V G V S T . T R . POT.—unusual on C A issues—and the same peculiar

lettering and execution as group I V o f the SC coinage (e.g. Pi. I l l , 19). ( B ) A heavier
coin (probably a dupondius), w i t h the same inscription (Pi. I V , 9),* has an equally close
portrait resemblance to group V o f the SC series (e.g. Pi. I l l , 21). These coincidences
from Syria, as from Cyprus, show decisively that a number of the SC and A V G V S T V S -
CA issues were made i n conjunction by the same authorities. (C) A third C A piece
w i t h the characteristic Syrian reverse style has no obverse legend (Pi. I V , 11), and
10

a portrait imitated from an Eastern denarius. 11

A n A V G V S T V S as, which may be
barbaric (Pi. I V , 7 ) , " also appears to be o f Syrian workmanship. These attributions
13

14
are confirmed by provenance; moreover, there are imitations o f this group by a
Phoenician city-issue, which w i l l be discussed elsewhere (p. 344).
1
For this vide Godisnik, Annuaire des musees BMC. Imp. Aug. 740.
8

nationaux bulgares, v, 1926-31, pp. 147 ff.; Canta- 9 Ibid. 739, Vatican, New York,
cuzene, Melanges Gloti, p. 105. 1 0
Rome.
2
Sofia. BMC. Imp. Aug. 679.
1 1

3
Oberhummer, PW. vi, 1714. " Gotha, Vatican.
4
Head, HN. p. 28. 5 Sofia. Milan Cat. p. 46. 443-6 generalises from pieces
1 3

6
BM. A second andfinerspecimen is illustrated of Syrian appearance to attribute all AVGVSTVS
in two sale catalogues: Merzbacher (1909) 1130, pieces to Antioch.
Hamburger (1925) 515. Boutkowski, DN. p. 684. 1286, Beirut, Jeru-
1 4

7
Hill, NC. 1924, p. 14. salem.
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M
107

I V . European groups
Several European categories can also be recovered. ( A ) Asses w i t h C A I S A R (sic)
on the obverse, and A V G V S T V S i n two lines on the reverse (PL I V , 13), have a
1

distinctive portrait that is a modified form o f the I O V I O L V . prototype*—not derived

from earlier models, as Grueber^ assumed from a bad specimen—and corresponds, i n
the Hellenised obverse spelling as i n style, to dupondii o f orichalcum* and copper
semisses w i t h CA5 (Pi. I V , 12). T w o o f the latter are from Thrace or the Black Sea 6

(a third may be o f Gallic provenance ). Since, moreover, a number o f the asses have
7

been found i n Greece, and the portrait is imitated at colonia Pella (p. 249), the issues
8

0
can be allotted w i t h great probability to an East European mint.
(B) A very rare sestertius with the reverse legend A V G V S T V S has on the obverse
1 0

IMP. CAESAR w i t h a rudimentary form o f E ; a kindred series, w i t h IMP. CAISAR,

includes C A semisses and dupondii (PL I V , 14), besides sestertii which are unique i n
11 12 13

their denomination owing to the appearance o f a corona navalis (PL I V , 16). One o f
the dupondii was found in Greece, and the group is likely to be the product of a second
14

Balkan mint.
(C) I t seems possible to connect another issue w i t h a mint even farther to the West:
a C A as, which like others lacks an obverse legend, but whose style is distinctive
x 16
(PL I V , io), 5 is represented among finds at Aquileia. I n execution i t recalls local issues
of colonia Dyrrhachium (p. 276), and the use o f a Roman portrait model —very rare 17

in the East (p. 470)—confirms attribution to the Adriatic region.

I t is now clear that C A pieces circulated, and were issued, alongside both
A V G V S T V S and SC. The formula which C A represents may be expected, then, to
express the authority of princeps or senate. The latter's prestige obtained invariable and
stereotyped expression by the senatus consultum, which cannot i n any way be repre-
sented by the letters C A . As the asses w i t h the bare inscriptions CAESAR-
A V G V S T V S suggest, and as the wide provenance o f that series and o f C A and SC
issues proves, the coinage is official. The interpretation o f C A as C(ommune) A(siae)
(p. 105) is clearly beside the point for a series o f such enormous scope and circulation.
1
New York, Paris, Athens, BMC. Imp. Aug. 730. fur Mineralogie, 1849, p. 417; Davies, Roman Mines
2
BMC. Imp. Aug. 669. in Europe, p. 247. The famous 'Corinthian bronze*
3
BMCR. 11, p. 546. may also have contained zinc, ibid. p. 253.
4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 724. 1 0
BMC. Imp. Aug. 729.
5 Ibid. 708, 711, Leningrad (2), New York (3), 1 1
Munich.
Avignon. 1 4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 724, illegible; Berlin, Oxford,
6
BMC. Imp. p. 115. Perhaps also the Leningrad own coll.
1 3
specimens. Hague.
7 1 4
Avignon. Own coll., acquired in Athens.
8
Athens mus., also in trade there. BM, New York (2), Zagreb.
9
The orichalcum pieces may be composed of zinc 1 6
Zagreb specimen, from Horvat coll.
ore from Laurium—cf. Landerer, Neues Jahrbuch BMC. Imp. Aug. 74 (17 B.C.).
1 7
 108 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C-A.D. 14
Laffranchi's Certamina Actiaca did not possess any o f the necessary qualities; yet his
1

next version, Classiarium Actium, is a change for the worse, being as hard to construe
2

as to justify. Regling's Consensu) A(ugusti) is i n conformity w i t h the official cha-

3

4
racter o f the coins, but is bad L a t i n and inaccurate constitutional phraseology. His
alternative C(pncessu) A(ugusti) would, like it, be unparalleled as a variant for Permissu
August^ which was i n regular use at this very time (p. 220). Moreover, his version
would require mention o f the city, or man, to w h o m the permission is extended—
which is invariably and naturally displayed on coins w i t h such formulas. These sugges-
tions, then, must all be regarded as unplausible. Augustus is not here conceding coin-
rights to a local community, but licensing currency for the Empire. The appearance o f
CA on several copper issues o f varying denomination, besides on those o f orichalcum,
shows that the significance o f the formula cannot be limited to any value or metal.
Again, the deliberate alternation, on the principal groups, o f the legends CAESAR-
A V G V S T V S and A V G V S T V S - C A , makes i t most improbable that an entirely
otiose A V G V S T V S - C ( a w a r ) A(ugustus) can be intended, but likely, nevertheless,
that the w o r d Caesar should somehow appear; while the (often exact) parallel afforded
6

by the SC variants suggests that here is a similar constitutional formula.

A l l these requirements are fulfilled by interpretation as CAESARIS AVCTORI-
TATE. The supreme auctoritas o f Augustus was, needless to say, virtually binding
(p. 443), even i f not officially recognised by the Senate i n 27 or legally confirmed
7 s

in 24 (p. 445).° There are additional reasons for its peculiar relevance here. I t is
especially significant that even the senatus consultum, though i n practice binding (p. 98),
wasnot yet a sourceof law: itwas itself Bnauctoritas. Thus there is point and accuracyin
10

the parallelism, on otherwise identical coins, from identical mints, o f SC and C(aesaris)
A(uctoritate). Secondly, it has been established that i t was precisely by his auctoritas that
Augustus controlled the aerarium. 11
Thirdly, a large number o f extant inscriptions con-
join the two formulas i n phrases such as Caesaris or principis auctoritate et ex s.c, Ex
s.c. auctore Caesare o r p r i n c i p e : 12
i n a Cyrenian Edict is KCCTCC. . .86y|ia TOO awKAf|Tov...

R.u. xxix, 1916, p. 296.

1
von Premerstein, p. 192; cf. Volkmann,
q

2
R.it. xxx, 1917, p. 255. Munchener Beitrdge %ur Papyrusforschung, xxi,
3
BMB. 1907, p. 503. 1935, pp. 218 ff.
4
Cf. Hill, NC. 1927, p. 381. Cf. Fiirst, Die Bedeutung der Auctoritas,
1 0

5
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxxv. Diss. Marburg, 1934, pp. 47 f.; Riccobono,
6
CA(esar), however, is impossible, owing to the Annali del Seminario giuridico delta R. Univ. di
frequent interpolation of a dot. Palermo, xv, 1936, p. 386; Siber, SavZ. L V I I , 1937,
7
Cf. Gmelin, Forschungen %ur Kirchen- und p. 450, pace De Martino, Lo Stato di Augusto,
Geistesgeschichte, xi, 1937, p. 58; Wenger, Deutsche p. 34.
Literatur\eitung, 1939, p. 874, etc. Ovid is in no " von Premerstein, p. 192; cf. Anderson, JRS.
doubt about this: 'nec mea damnasti decreto facta xxix, 1939, p. 96.
senatus* {Tristia, ii, 131). von Premerstein, pp. 222 f.; cf. Gmelin,
1 2

8
von Premerstein, p. 218, corrected by Kahr- Romische Herrscheridee und pdpstliche Autoritdt,
stedt, GGA. 1938, p. 16. p. 74.
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M I 0 9

TCOIk\x&\ liTiKpinccTu Even i n the 'senatorial' province of Cyprus, P. Paquius Scaeva is

1

reappointed to the proconsulate auctoritate Caesaris Augusti et ex s.c* A remarkably

similar collocation is found on the state-controlled coinage of colonia Paestum (p. 289).
3
Similar measures without reference to the Senate need not be quoted, since here
already are exact parallels to the joint coinages—sometimes at the same m i n t — w i t h
C A and SC. Both formulas refer to the same executive process: i t was now customary
for the princeps, when auctor sententiae o f a senatus consultum, to be mentioned i n that
capacity i n its official record. I n this sense, o f course, the auctoritas principis is valid
4

in 'senatorial' provinces, just as the 'imperial' provinces are included i n the scope o f
the auctoritas senatus consuld (pp. 434 ff.). This coinage, w i t h its striking and extensive
application o f the auctoritas principis, shows, like so many other o f his interventions,
that, i f Augustus was careful to maintain correct forms and strong enough for them
to suffice, he was not afraid to govern his Empire. The main issue o f C A was i n a
'senatorial' province, and, conversely, the SC series was largely struck i n 'imperial'
Syria: these emphases on the components o f the State which were least prominent
in the different administrations o f the t w o provinces bear witness to Augustus's
desire to avoid a dyarchy, and to the full existence o f the Republic i n all parts o f the
Empire alike. For princeps and senate were only co-operating i n the interests o f the
sovereign people.5 Egypt provides the best illustration o f the triple combination: i t
belonged to the Roman people, its revenues fell to the senatorial aerarium, but i t was
6

governed by the personal representative o f the princeps (p. 133). Thus C A and SC
were alike universally valid, and the coinages so inscribed are part o f a vast scheme
o f publicity whose ramifications w i l l be discovered again and again throughout this
7
book.
The use o f Caesaris rather than Augusti w i t h auctoritate is given a meaning by die
economical coin-legends which this propagandist aim required: C(aesaris) Muctoritate)
balances A V G V S T V S on the dupondii as A V G V S T V S balances CAESAR on the
asses. This avoids Augusti auctoritate, a tautology o f phrase and sense o f which the8

0 10
Romans would have been conscious, and presents throughout two contrasted features
o f the compound political theory that constituted the principate. A second cause for
1
in (SEG. ix, 1938, p. 14; cf. de Visscher, p. 23; cf. Riccobono, Annali del Seminario giuridico
Comptes-rendus de VAcadimie des Inscriptions, 1939, della R. Univ. di Palermo, X V , 1936, pp. 478, 506.
p. 112). 6
RG. 27.
a
ILS. 915.- The same combination enabled 7
The care with which the Romans studied their
Cassius Severus to be condemned: Suet. Cal. 16; coins is emphasised by Mattingly, CAH. X I I , p. 716.
Tac. Ann. 1, 72, iv, 21, cf. Lengle, Netie Wege %ur 8
Cf. Reiter, Phil. Woch. (1930) 1199, Augeo,
Antike, xi, 1934, p. 62; Ovid, Tristia, u, 131. Augustus; for full bibliography, see below, p. 444.
3
Cf. Gag£, Revue historique, C L X X V I I , 1936, 9
Cf. Ribezzo, Rivista indo-greco-italica, X X I ,
p. 341. 1937, P. 19, etc.
4
von Premerstein, p. 222. 1 0
Cf. distinction between the two titles by
5
Emphasised by Zmigryder-Konopka, VIHe Mattingly, BMC. Imp. m, pp. xxivf.; Toynbee,
Congres international des sciences historiques, I I , 1938, NC. L X I V , 1937, p. 325.
no COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B . C - A . D . 14

the preference o f Caesaris to Augusti may have been the crystallisation o f the formula
1
—like a number of others —before the invention o f the name Augustus. The retention
of plain Caesaris was all the easier since the princeps was, all his life, frequently known
by this name alone. The different legend o f the asses, on whose reverses A V G V S T V S
2

is substituted for C A , is merely a device—like the rostral wreath on the dupondii, and
the varying titulatures on Eastern SC coins—to maintain a distinction between the
two denominations: these were even more easily confused than at Rome, owing to the
employment o f impure copper (p. 104). O n outlying issues, as we have seen, these
devices were neglected and other divergencies also occur. Nevertheless, the coinage
as a whole was a remarkable attempt to achieve an uniform official currency o f aes for
the East. Greater homogeneity was attained later, when issues w i t h SC were made
from a central mint, and became universal i n East as in West. However, under Tiberius,
as has been seen, the SC currency is still not uniform. His official issues include one o f
3
uncertain mintage, reading D I V V S A V G . , which supports our interpretation o f C A
4
by its reverse legend—TA. This cannot be T(pioc) A(aac<pia), as Grueber suggests:5
T, not T, is the Greek numeral 3, and the ambiguity w i t h T(&rcrccpa) would be i n -
tolerable. O n the other hand, T(iberii) A(uctoritate) is entirely suitable, and is cor-
6

roborated by our demonstration that Augusti auctoritate would have been a clumsy and
pleonastic expression.
The striking parallelism o f Eastern C A and SC coinages has been seen to confirm
the hypothesis that Caesaris auctoritas and the senatus consultum are the t w o com-
ponents i n a single executive progress that produced coinage. The analogy o f the
Eastern SC issues must be extended to the Roman, whose problematical constitutional
position is thus solved. These three currencies, like those o f Glabrio, Primus (?), and a
Cypriot legatus—their only predecessors since 27—have no connection whatever w i t h
the imperium principis: i t w i l l be shown that supplementary issues o f the same date lack
this equally (p. 130). These orichalcum and copper pieces reveal clearly the manner i n
which, throughout the Empire, the princeps could rule but the senatorial authority
still be recorded. N o r was this a dyarchy, but collaboration for the welfare o f the
sovereign people by means o f its single treasury.
The official coinages i n the East are now seen not only to provide vital historical
evidence, but to have attained, as currency, unrecognised dimensions and complexity.
But they must be completed by the addition of several series whose insignificant module
and non-informative design have enabled their participation i n the official system to
escape notice.
1
E.g. ITOS Kocfaapos, Wilcken, Griechiscke 1938^.274; de Sanctis, Riv.difilologia, 1937, p. 337.
Ostraka, pp. 787 f. 3 BM (uncertain): not D I V I F. AVGVSTVS, as
* Cf. de Z u l u e t a , 1 9 3 2 , p. 186; Nock, CR. Grueber, NC. 1904, p. 210.
1938, p. 146 (pace Markowski, Po^naAskie Towar- 4
Not to be confused with Augustan issues with
lystwo Priyjacidl Nauk [Pr. K. Fil.], vm, 2); AT, for which see below, p. 344.
Cumont, Rev. hist, C L X I I I , 1930, p. 242; Eger, SavZ. 5 L.c. 6
Cf. below, p. 344, for a similar error.
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M in

4. T Y P E S O F C O L O N I S T S A N D C A P R I C O R N

The frequent halving o f asses i n Gaul and elsewhere, and their fabrication already i n 1

2
this form by natives, shows that this denomination was not l o w enough to meet every
provincial need.3 The deficiency o f subdivisions would be especially inconvenient i n
the Asiatic provinces, where the absence o f large coins from the local series (p. 377)
suggests that small pieces alone were universally acceptable. Yet the Eastern SC issues
did not include semisses or lower values, and we have seen good reason to think that
the few semisses w i t h C A were only struck, and only regularly circulated, i n Eastern
4
Europe. According to D i o , Maecenas urged the abolition o f city-currencies: but i f
Dio's mention o f this policy is not anachronistic,* and i t was really proposed at this
time, it could only be successful i f official coins o f equally diminutive size were substi-
tuted for the local pieces. The attempt which Augustus and his immediate successors
made to provide such a currency o f semisses has not been recognised, since the type,
6

two colonists ploughing, has invariably led to attribution to a Roman city, such as
7 8
Parium or Berytus. Whether these two mints were employed or not, there are
0
numerous indications that the whole series—including heads o f Augustus (Pi. I V ,
29-31; V , 1, 2), Tiberius and Caligula"—was official:—
10

(1) Such a vast circulation would be completely unparalleled and anomalous for a
12 x
single colonial series. Specimens have been discovered in Illyricum, Upper 3 and Lower
14 1 16
Moesia, and the Thracian Chersonese, * besides Mysia-Troas; others have come to
17 18
light i n Bithynia, and a countermark P H R . (Phrygia minor?) is only paralleled at
Bithynian Apamea (p. 256). More finds are reported from Pisidia, Syria, and even 10 20

21 22
Armenia. Indeed, a countermark E M P . seems to indicate that these coins penetrated
2 24
asfarasEmporiae in Spain; * perhaps even more remarkable is the history of a specimen
2 26
which was twice countermarked by Cos * and finally went to ground i n free Germany.
Strack, BJ. cvm, 1902, pp. 1 fF.
1 1 6
Many at Istanbul and in trade (Istanbul-Pera).
2 1 7
E.g. at Bonn, COL. NEM. struck as half. E.g. Tiberius at Eregli (in trade, Istanbul-Pera),
3
The same deficiency is pointed out by Forrer, andnearBursa(seenbythewriterintheBursabazaar).
Strasbourg-Argentorate, 1, p. 273. L I I , 30. 9. 4 1 8
Augustus (Gotha); Tiberius (Istanbul).
5 As Meyer, De Maecenatis oratione a Diane ficta 1 9
Tiberius at Egridir(?) (in trade, Istanbul).
(Diss. Berlin, 1891); Schwartz, PW. in, 1720. 2 0
Attribution to Berytus in the Berlin collection
Av. 68 grains (14 specimens); cf. Mattingly, is based on provenance.
6

BMC. Imp. p. lvi. 2 1

Tiberius at Diyarbakir (Istanbul).
M. S. v, 395. 707, etc.
7
Berlin. 8
Augustus (Turin). 2 2

9 BMC. 86; Turin, Oxford, Paris; M. S. l.c. 2 3

An example at Nimes (from the de Villeperdrix
10
BMC. 89; M. S. v, 397. 716. coll.) may also have been found locally.
11
Istanbul, ?BM (AVG.). Ehingen coll.; cf. Goessler, FunSerichte aus
2 4

12
Augustus at Si§ak (Zagreb mus.). Schwaben, NF. iv, 1.928, p. 105.
13
Augustus from Serbia (Zagreb). * Crab, NIKOMH(8TIS), righdy attributed by
2

14
Augustus (Sofia). Bernhart, Fundb., l.c.
x
5 Augustus at Elaeus (Eski Hisarlik) (Istanbul At Unterkirchberg in N. Wurttemberg, FunS.,
2 6

mus.). l.c.
ii2 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
(2) A number o f other countermarks appear which are peculiar to the official
1 2
coinage: A V . is common on issues o f the moneyers and on Lugdunese 'Altar* coins,
3 4 6
a wheel is characteristic o f Nemausus, a prow5 is found on the Roman series. The
first two at least are specifically official countermarks, which would be quite irregular
on colonial pieces.
(3) I t is therefore not surprising that these coins, unlike city-issues, have neither
ethnic, nor local formula, nor magistrate's signature.
The type which they bear is no less significant to the propaganda o f the new order
than the duality o f C A and SC on the larger denominations. N o t only did Augustus
establish many settlers i n the East—and pay for the land they occupied (p. 305)—hut
one o f the chief elements i n the theory o f the principate was his position as universal
refounder, which is emphasised i n numerous ways on the coinage o f Roman and pere-
grine cities alike (pp. 290, 335 ff.): particularly important was his association w i t h
Romulus i n the capacity o f conditorJ The manifold influence o f the conception
cannot be exaggerated (p. 356); and the significance o f the coin-type was not limited
to the details o f colonial foundation.
I t has been shown that complete centralisation o f mint was not attempted for the
SC and C A - A V G V S T V S series: there was i n each case a principal issue—for the
former group i n Syria and for the latter i n Ionia—supplemented by the products o f a
number o f lesser workshops. A n examination o f the present issues makes i t clear that
here also more than one mint was at work. There can be no doubt that the central
point o f the system was i n Mysia or the Troad, where many are found. A number
8
of countermarks on these coins indicate extensive circulation i n that region: an o w l
0 10 12 13 14
is stamped also at Miletopolis, a Capricorn at Pitane," a star at I l i u m , Lampsacus,
Imbros * and colonia Alexandria Troas, whose acceptance o f this series is further
1 16

1
indicated by another countermark TR. ? There is, however, good reason to think that
18
the principal centre for the issue was at Parium, since i n the principate o f Tiberius
10
almost identical issues w i t h the 'colonist' type (and the heads o f Drusus or Tiberius
20
and Drusus ) have the letters C.G.I.P. The final closure o f the official mint i n
21
favour o f a colonial one is announced by two subsequent coinages o f Caligula(?)
1
Tiberius (Copenhagen). Copenhagen, cf. Wad. 1154.
1 3

2
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxxii. Paris (M. S. v, 375. 593).
1 4

3
Augustus (Zagreb). 4
Berlin, Paris, Brussels. * Athens (Postolacca, Cat. p. 163).
x

1 6 1 7
5 Augustus (Istanbul). In trade (Paris). Augustus (Vienna).
6
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxxix. 1 8
Such provincial mints as Parium and Antioch
7
Kornemann, Klio, 1938, pp. 81 f., 85. make Mattingly's description of Rome as 'the one
8
Augustus (Vienna). great centre* of aes coinage in the Early Empire
9
Winterthur, cf. Imhoof-Blumer, RS. X I I I , 1905, (CAH. X I I , p. 714) seem scarcely applicable to the
p. 208. principate of Augustus.
1 0
Tiberius (in trade, Istanbul-Pera). Berlin, Oxford; cf. M. S. v, 397. 719.
1 9

11
Vienna, cf. Wad. 991. BMC. 92, Berlin; cf. M. S. v, 413. 818.
2 0

12
Augustus (Vienna). Ibid. 397. 720; not seen.
2 1
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M n 3

1
Claudius w i t h the same letters. This ethnic explicitly imposes a limitation shown b y
provenance, countermarks, and the lack o f a reverse legend, to have been absent from
the earlier series. Other official mints i n the same region may have augmented the
output o f Parium; but the divergencies i n style between the various coins o f this class
are so significant that i t is impossible to resist the conclusion that many were struck
much farther afield. Their circulation, and the analogy o f other widespread Eastern
official series, make this particularly probable. Several specimens both o f Augustus*
3
and Tiberius have styles alien to Parium; the late Augustan piece which reached
4
Emporiae is again o f quite different execution. Examples found i n Armenia* and
6 7
Syria appear to originate from a mint i n or near Syrian Antioch; the style o f others
is very close to that o f Antioch i n Pisidia, where specimens have come to light. Perhaps
8
a Bithynian town also contributed to the circulation o f these coins i n the province;
and the two countermarks o f Cos which appear on one specimen (found i n Germany) led
0
Goessler to the not improbable conclusion that that island was the place o f its origin.
10
Most significant o f all is a rare issue w i t h a strongly individual portrait (Pi. V , i ) ,
whose style and fabric recall coins o f Pontus and Paphlagonia and certainly have no
connection w i t h the central Mysian mint. This conclusion is confirmed by the presence
11
in this (but not the central) group o f traces o f z i n c ; the Mysian coins also have much
less lead than these."
However, the Mysian mint was certainly the focal point o f all these issues. A very
13
young portrait o f Augustus on one 'colonist* specimen connects the series with a
quadrans on which an identical head is accompanied by the type o f a Capricorn and
cofnucopiae: * the only inscription is still A V G . , on the obverse (Pi. V , 3 ) . There is also
1

an as * of similar style and type, reading A V G V S T V S (here on the reverse) (Pi. I V , 32).
1

16
Similar coins o f N e r o prove,by their countermark C.G.I.P.,theconnection of this piece
w i t h the semisses o f 'colonist* type. Moreover, the Capricorn, the type o f these asses
and quadrantes, is affixed as a stamp on the 'colonist* coins. W e have seen that the
Julio-Claudian period witnessed a transformation o f the 'colonist* coinage into a local
currency: the asses w i t h Capricorn are shown to have undergone a similar alteration
of scope b y the appearance o f D . D . on otherwise similar asses o f Claudius(?) and 17

18 1
Nero. Another issue w i t h Nero's head bears the name o f a local magistrate. * But i n
the principate o f Augustus i t is evident that the 'Capricorn' asses were official issues,
exhibiting a divergency of type from the much more frequent asses w i t h the same inscrip-
1
BMC. 93. 1 2
Spectrograms 40, 41, 42. *3 Munich.
2
E.g. BM. 1 4
Vienna, Berlin, Cahn sale, 60. (1928) 1401.
3
E.g. Paris, Nimes, Ball sale 39 (1937) n 57. 1 5
Paris, Simon coll. (Cahn sale 68 [1930] 150);
4
Turin. 5 Istanbul. 6
Berlin. cf. M. S. v, 395. 710; Cohen, Description historique
' Istanbul; in trade (Istanbul-Pera). des monnaies frappies sous Vempire romain, Aug. 781.
8
In trade (Bursa). 1 6
Munich. Glasgow (flu. 111, p. 67).
1 7

9
FunSerichte aus Schwaben, l.c. Sofia; cf. M. n, 579. 43© and S. v, 595.706 (both
1 8

1 0
R. C . Lockett coll., Paris, own coll. misread).
11
Spectrogram 39. 1 9
Paris.
ii4 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
lion, A V G V S T V S , i n a wreath (p. 102). The curious portrait o f the' Capricorn' asses is
imitated at Cyzicus; the young head on the' colonist' semisses and' Capricorn' quadt-antes
1

is very similar to that on a famous group o f aurei and denarii inscribed CAESAR
2
A V G V S T . , which have, moreover, the type o f a candelabrum whose arrangement is
3
copied on Cyzicene bronze. I t is probable that these too were struck at Parium, i f
not at Cyzicus itself. A n explanation o f the portraits w i l l be derived from the local
issues (p. 357). Finds establish an upper limit o f c. 11 B . C . for the aurei and denarii'*
the 'colonist* semisses employ portrait-models which suggest that they also, like the
principal C A - A V G V S T V S groups which supplied the higher denominations, were o f
about that date. The coins with the Capricorn illustrate a brief phase i n which the official
mint at Parium supplied the surrounding region w i t h asses, and imitated Rome by
issuing quadrantes, which were absent from the main Eastern series. But Parium was
most important as the focal point of the widely current and much reduplicated series o f
'colonist' semisses: these are an essential constituent o f the elaborate aes system which
formed the nucleus o f all official and local currencies i n the East.5 I t is characteristic o f
Rome, and o f Augustus, to have sacrificed the uniformity o f a bureaucracy i n favour
6
of the thoroughness which means good government.
The analogies o f other official currencies indicate that these groups, centred as they
were i n 'senatorial' provinces and designed as supplementary to the higher denomina-
tions, were likewise a product o f senatus consulta Caesaris auctoritate.

c 9
5. N E M A U S U S lb
The second major issue at Nemausus ( l £ ) started not long after 15, and ended after
8 B . C . (p. 74) (Pi. I I , 19-23). After consideration o f the complicated network o f
official currencies i n the East, i t should not cause surprise that the mint o f Rome, with
its few supplementary mints i n Italy, soon proved inadequate for the needs o f the
West; i t was, i n particular, somewhat inaccessible to the principal military centres
on the Rhine. A n indication has already been given o f the enormous bulk and scope
of 'Nemausus I b \ I f the present chronological and administrative reattribution is
accepted, i t necessitates an entirely new view o f Augustan mint policy i n the West.
This, not the' Altar' series, was the first official token coinage to be issued in co-operation
with the mint for gold and silver at Lugdunum (15 B . C . ) . The new system was perhaps
7

8
connected w i t h a financial revision following the expulsion o f the procurator Licinus.
1
Paris. Asia is inapplicable to this period.
BMC. Imp. Aug. 683 f.; cf. Bahrfeldt, Miini-
2 6
For the diversity of imperial arrangements cf.
studien, 1, 1923, pp. 136 f. Larsen, CP. xxxiv, 1939, p. 162; Last, CAH. xi,
Weber Cat. 5055, Vienna, Berlin.
3
p. 475; Cary, History, xxn, 1938, p. 59.
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. pp. cxxvi f.
4 7
Strabo iv, 192; Boissieu, Inscriptions antiques
5 Broughton's statement (ES. 1 v, p. 882, cf. 886) de Lyon, pp. 126,181; Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxiii.
that there was 'hardly any imperial small change* in Cf. Stevenson, CAH. x, pp. 189, 193.
8
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M n 5

The analogy o f the groups previously described i n this chapter—especially those

1
from the 'senatorial provinces', o f which Gallia Narbonensis was now one —indicates
that the mint o f Nemausus was no longer governed i n the same way as at its institution
i n c. 28. Indeed, i t w i l l be shown that Augustus no longer possessed i n this period an
imperium maius such as he had exercised at that date (p. 428). There is, then, no reason
to doubt that the present issues, like their immediate predecessors i n the official coinages
elsewhere, werebased on the co-operation ofauctoritasprincipisznA thesenatusconsultum.
' Nemausus lb did not, however, provide a permanent solution. One reason for its
9

abandonment is shown b y the spectrograph, which reveals that the new metals o f
orichalcum and copper were not here employed. The retention o f the old alloy o f 2

bronze, and o f an as weighing c. 188-8 grains,* was no doubt intended to assist ex-
change w i t h the previous official and local currencies o f Gaul and elsewhere which
were still i n circulation; but, i n view o f the Imperial importance o f the Gallic monetary
centre, i t is not surprising that this defection from the new system proved unsatis-
factory. Furthermore, i n view o f their distance from each other and their different
4
administrative position, Nemausus and Lugdunum were ill-suited for collaboration.
A t about the beginning o f the last decade B . C . , therefore, a new solution was envisaged.

6. L U G D U N U M ( A N DA U X I L I A R Y M I N T S ? )

Both the principal disadvantages o f the Nemausan coinage were abolished b y the
institution o f a series consisting chiefly o f copper asses* (but including a sestertius o f
orichalcum**) whose famous ' A l t a r ' type demands attribution to Lugdunum:? an altar,
8
probably w i t h the inscription o f the coins R O M . E T A V G . , was dedicated at this city
in 12 B.C.° The somewhat rough style o f these pieces (Pi. V , 4, 5) is no evidence for
'provincial' origin under the Concilium Galliarum, 10
since the technical departments no
doubt employed local labour. Moreover, a second and larger issue o f four denomina-
tions w i t h precisely the same types" is o f superior workmanship. I t marks a recovery
from the irregular fabric and execution o f previous Nemausan and Lugdunese issues,
and served an additional purpose since native imitations, no longer being so easy,
become much rarer.
9
Strabo's" reference to a coinage o f ' g o l d and silver by theprincipes at Lugdunum
does not i m p l y that the aes, which he ignores, was the concern o f the Concilium, since
13

1
Ibid. p. 211. Spectrogram 2.
2
* Livy, Epit. 137; Dio LIV, 321; cf. Rice Holmes,
3
Average of 23. Architect, 11, p. 158, pace Suet. Claudius, 2. 1
4
I hope to deal at a later date with Tiberius's (10 B.C.); Catalogo delta Mostra Augustea di
reasons for resuming the Nemausan coinage (p. 75). Romanitd, p. 146. 6 (13 B.C.).
5 BMC, Imp. Aug. 549 ff. As Sydenham, NC. 1917, p. 75; Sutherland,
1 0

6
Ibid. 548 (analysed). 7 Mattingly, ibid. p. cxvii. RIS. p. 243 n. 19.
8
CIL. xiii, 1664. For this cf., most recendy, BMC. Imp. Aug. 565 ff.
1 1

Dragendorff, Jahrbuch des deutschen archdologischen iv, 192. 1 2

Instituts, 1937, p. i n . As Sydenham, NC. 1917, p. 75.

1 3
n6 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14

at the date at which Strabo w r o t e the aes issues had either ceased or were limited to an
1

occasional quadrans? The provincial allusion o f the 'Altar* has no autonomous signi-
3
ficance whatsoever: on the contrary, i t refers to the ruler-worship o f which Lugdunum
was the centre—and o f which, indeed, the Concilium Galliarum was the prime mover—
i n the area for which these coins were primarily intended, namely, the vital and complex
4
province o f Gallia Comata.
However, as might be expected from the study o f other official issues, their scope
was by no means limited to this region. They circulated widely without countermarks
6
i n the ring o f surrounding territories, Gallia Narbonensis,* Rhaetia-Vindelicia, and
7
free Germany. Occasionally, too, they are found much farther afield, i n Hispania
8 0 10 13
Ulterior, Italy, Sicily, Sardinia," Illyricum-Pannonia" and Epirus. Imitations
1
Cf. Aly, PW. iv, 77 f. (Woerl, BericAt iiber eine AnyM im J. 1849 aufge-
2
E.g. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxxx; cf. Ti. Jundener rom. Munjen, p. 13), Neustadt a. D .
62. (Landshut mus.; Verhandlungen des historischen
3
As Mowat, Rn. 1895, p. 160. Vereins filr Niederbayern, ix, 1863, p. 40).
4
The circulation and countermarks of the earlier 7
E.g. Saalburg (mus.; Saalburg Jahrbuch, v,
and later groups do not warrant any distinction be- 1924, pp. 41,49, 54; vi, p. 46), Jagsthausen (Nesde,
tween the two. Many in all museums, e.g. Lyon Funde, p. 57; Berlichingen coll.), Obernau (ibid,
(about 60), Besancpn (8), Dijon, Chatillon (Daguin, p. 69), Lorch (Goessler, Fundberichte aus Schwaben,
Bulletin de la Soc. nat. des antiquaires de France, NF. I , 1922, p. 104; Peter coll.), Rottweil (ibid.
1901, p. 216), S. Germain-en-Laye (Reinach, Cat. 11, NF. v, 1930J p. 94), Badenweiler (Bissinger, Funde,
p. 320), Rennes (Toulmouche, Cat. p. 41). Found p. 13; Karlsruhe mus.), Riegel (ibid. p. 15; Schreiber
at the frontier-posts of Neuss (222-^; Strack, BJ. coll.), Baden (ibid. p. 19; Karlsruhe), Pforzheim
cxii, 1904, pp. 419 ff.), Courroux, Kaiseraugst (Basel (ibid. p. 23), Daxlanden (ibid. p. 24), Wiesloch
mus.), Windisch (An^eiger fur Schweqerische Alter- (ibid. p. 26), Walldorf (ibid.; Heidelberg Univ.
tumskunde, xxxiv, 1932, p. 112; xxxvm, 1936, mus.), Prague (Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesell-
p. 176; Stuckelberg, ZfN. xxn [1900], pp. 40 ff., schafi fur Anthropologic, x, 1878, p. 45), Vechten
100), Ehl (Colmar mus.), Mulhouse (mus.), Hees (Leiden mus.), Karlsruhe (mus.).
(Brunsting, Archaeologisch-Historische Bijdragen, Cf. Correia de Fonseca, Archeologo Portugues,
8

iv, 1937, p. 170), Nijmegen, Helden, Valkenburg, xvn, 1912, pp. 113, 116.
Heerewaarden (Leiden mus.), Pommern, Urmitz, 9 E.g. found at Naples: Sgobbo, Notqie degli
Andernach (Bonn mus.), Strasbourg (Forrer, Strasb. Scavi, 1926, p. 77.
h P» 73), Xanten (Steiner, Cat. p. 85), Ubbergen
2 1 0
Now at Magdeburg (Realgymnasium): for
(Oudheidk. Med. Leiden, NR. xn, 1931, p. 95), provenance cf. Lilie, Jahresbericht iiber das Real-
Bingen (Behrens, Cat. p. 153) etc. gymnasium in Magdeburg, 1902-3, p. 18, cf.
Found at Vienne (3), Orange (2), Narbonne p. 1.
5

(24) (in local museums), Montans (Mimoires de la 1 1

Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico sardo, iv,
SocUti archdologique du midi de la France, ix, 1872, 1858, p. 156; also one at Cagliari mus., as D . Levi
p. 228); seen in trade at Aries. Most of those in informs me.
museums at Nimes (31), Marseille (20) and Avignon 1 2
E.g. Petronel (Elmer, NZ. L X V I , 1933, p. 66),
(12) are also of local provenance. Sotin, Novi Banovci, SiSak, and on coast (Zagreb
6
Found at Giubiasco (Basel mus.), Hegau mus.); two in Belgrade (Elmer, Cat. pp. 56 £.),•>.
(Bissinger, Funde, p. 27), Winterthur (mus.), probably of Serbian provenance.
Wangen (Nesde, Funde, p. 90), Risstissen (ibid. 1 3
Found in Albania (Zagreb mus.).
p. 82; Schenk von Stauffenberg coll.), Constance
 THE BASES O F T H E R E F O R M n 7

abound, but varieties i n style (e.g. PL V , 4, 5) make i t by no means inconceivable that

1

a few auxiliary mints assisted Lugdunum i n the production o f the issues. Their mint
superseded the Italian mints o f Rome as the chief source o f supply for the West,
although, as we have seen, no effort whatever was made to remove the Roman issues
from circulation. As i n other ' imperial * provinces, the princeps no doubt preferred to
coin by auctoritas through a senatus consultum rather than by his imperium.
Various categories o f countermark occur. I t has been shown that the stamps w i t h
the names and titles o f members o f the ruling house are post-Augustan (p. 94), and
elsewhere a discussion o f Spanish ethnics similarly affixed w i l l lead to the same result
(p. 299). I t is therefore significant that most o f the other countermarks also which
appear on these coins demand a terminus post quern considerably later than A . D . 14.
Thus C.A.* is found also on Antiochene aes o f Otho, P.R. on Commagenian o f 3 4

6 7 8
Tiberius 5 and on Antiochene o f Tiberius, Claudius and Nero, R. on Lugdunensian
of Nero.9 VAL(eai) y
10
which appears elsewhere variously abbreviated V A . and V A L E . , 1 1

12
is stamped on Tiberian issues o f Cascantum. I t is hardly possible that each o f these
had more than one period o f affixation. R E . and R E P . perhaps stand for rependatur *
13 14 1

16
and belong to the same time. E Q . may probably be assigned to an equestrian a/a,
1 7
in unknown circumstances, and I I I to the third legion; such legionary stamps are also
18
post-Augustan.
Another series o f stamps may conjecturally be attributed to Gallia Narbonensis,
on the grounds that no other interpretations permit such a homogeneous solution for
a homogeneous group. C.A.A., * C . I . A . , (IMP. A V . ) C . N . seem to indicate coloniae
1 20 2 1

Augusta Arelate and Iuliae Arausio and Narbo respectively; * V I G I . and V I G I N . 2 2 3 2 4

suggest the Vigintiviri who still governed Vocontio, * and P.P. recalls the formula
2

of Claudian date on the coins o f Nemausus. Similarly, on that series itself (p. 7 0 ) ,
C . D D . A R . may perhaps be interpreted as C(pnsensu) D D ( = decurionum) AR(elaten-
sium\ and C.I.C. might represent C(pIonia) l(ulia) Cfarcaso). * These restorations are
2

individually unimpressive, but gain some plausibility b y their number and uniformity.
Since these ' A l t a r ' coins demonstrably circulated w i t h the greatest freedom throughout
1
Among the more unusual is one found at Novi Vienna. 1 4
Cf. valeat. 1 5

1 6 1 7
Banovci (Zagreb mus.). Large collection at Bonn. Vienna. In trade, Brussels.
2
BMC. Imp. p. xxxii. Cf. Wruck, l.c p. 180. 2*b, e; p. 183. 53c.
1 8

3
Wruck, Die Syrische Proviniialpragung von Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxxii, prefers Colonia
Augustus bis Trajan, p. 184. 64b. Augusta Agrippina.
4
BMC. Imp. p. xxxiv. Brussels. 2 0

5 Vienna. 6
Istanbul. de Saulcy, L c pp. 421 ff.
2 1

7
Wruck, l.c. p. 120. i&d, p. 183. 53a. Kornemann 93, 95, 31.
2 2

8
In trade (Brussels); BM, incised. BMC. Imp. p. 395. 587 bis.
2 3

9 BMC. Imp. p. xxxv. 1 0

Ibid. p. xxxvi. 2 4
Ibid. p. xxxvii.
11
Cf. de Saulcy, Milanges de Numismatique, 1, 5 Rushforth, Latin Historical Inscriptions, p. 12.
2

pp. 113 ff. 11= CIL. X I I , 1376.

1 2
Hill, p. 170. 1 3
Basel. Kornemann 54.
2 6
n8 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
Gallia Narbonensis at this time, these countermarks, like most o f the other principal
1
groups, could not be as early as the principate o f Augustus. C. A . B . , i f not o f Babba or
a
Banasa, represents the name o f one o f the Spanish colonies, Barcino or Bilbilis; G R .
(Graccurris) is also found at Graccurris itself and at colonia Celsa (p. 212). These
countermarks are also o f a date well outside the present period (p. 299).
There are, however, several stamps that may be Augustan. A Capricorn* possibly
assures validity outside the general sphere o f circulation, i n north-west Asia Minor;
4
APX(OVTSS) perhaps serves for a single Greek community. The 'Altar* series, like
others, is also confirmed by Varus* for circulation i n a new province (p. 95); other
governors may perhaps be seen in L . C . and TER(e»oztf ?) A(feri ?). Since P.S.P. and
6 7 8

P.S.T.9 are uniform, they may be traced to the only province w i t h suitable neighbouring
colonies or municipia, namely, Sicily: the formula P(ermissu) S(enatus) is paralleled
elsewhere, and the cities are probably coloniae Panormus and Tyndaris (or Tauro-
menium or Thermae) (p. 237 f.). The difficulty which necessitated the stamping o f
Roman orichalcum coins i n Sicily (p. 96) must have extended, sooner or later, to
copper asses, such as these. Finally, a large countermark, including some letters and
an animal, interpreted dubiously b y Blanchet as A . A T . C . and a bull, occurs on coins
10
found near Mayenne. I t is probably assignable to some tribal community which
marked i t for circulation alongside its own issues. This stamp, together w i t h the
persistence o f Gallic' autonomous' coinage at least until the death of Augustus," makes
it doubtful whether, as yet, the tribes o f the North freely accepted Roman coin. The
day o f centralised bureaucracy had not yet come, but the Imperial range o f Augustus's
currency heralds the decline o f particularism.
The mint at Lugdunum, guarded by a cohort," was operated by freedmen and slaves
o f the res publicaf* owing to special circumstances b y which the headquarters o f the
legatus—at least from c. 12 to 9 B . C . i f not from c. 38**—were distant from the capital,
1 4

16
the mint can safely be attributed to the control o f the provincial procurator, who was
also i n charge o f the provincial area fisci.^ I n the other 'imperial' provinces the situa-
tion w i l l be shown to have been somewhat different (p. 130).
1
Paris. " ILS. 2130. 1 3
ILS. 5197, etc.
* Cf. BMC. Imp. p. xxxiii (C.R.). Ritterling, BJ. cxiv, 1906; .Syme, CAH. x,
1 4

3
Berlin. 4
Basel. p. 359.
5 BMC. Imp. p. xxix. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, iv, p. 103 n. 6; Rice
1 5

6
Ibid. p. xxxiii. Holmes, Architect, 11, pp. 145 f.
7
Ibid. p. xxxv. Unidentifiable. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichenVerwaltungsbeamten,
1 6

8
Paris. 9 BMC. Imp. p. xli. p. 181 n. 4; cf. ILS. 1514.
1 0
Blanchet, Traiti, p. 252; own collection. Boissieu, Inscriptions antiques de Lyon, pp.
1 7

11
Strack,^/.cxii,i904,p.426;cf.Neussfinds,/>oc« 277 ff., 260, 265 ff.; Habel, PW. 11, 425 ff., mis-
Willers, NZ. xxxn, 1900, p. 136. leadingly distinguishes areafromfiscus.
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y LEGATI AUGUSTI 119

D . P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y LEGATI AUGUSTI

I t was part o f the plan o f Augustus that the complex system o f official aes series should
be supplemented by other official issues o f smaller scope. I t is possible to recognise
such coinages i n most o f the provinces. They differ from the currencies already de-
scribed only b y reason o f their approximate limitation to a single province or territory:
1
the administrative officers who provided them are the same. They are, i n fact, official,
but owing to an unreasonable convention—and the failure to recognise the character
of most o f them—they are habitually excluded from studies o f the so-called' Imperial'
2
coinage. I n contrast to the general constitutional implications o f the principal issues,
these 'provincial' or 'regional' ones supply much detailed information concerning the
administration o f the Empire. A chronological survey o f their occurrence i n the
'imperial' provinces w i l l first be attempted.

1. H I S P A N I A U L T E R I O R : Emerita, uncertain M i n t

Some bronze asses* bear the head of Augustus to right, w i t h the variously abbreviated
inscription CAESAR A V G V S T V S T R I B V N I C I A P O T E S T A T E , and on the re-
verse, without a type, P. CARISIVS LEG(atus) AVG(usti). A dupondius* has the
head to left. Other asses indicate an attribution for the whole group b y the addition o f
the mint-mark E M E R I T A , and the type o f a bird's-eye view o f the town 5—as on
denarii o f the same legatus. P. Carisius? commanded the legions o f Farther Spain i n
6

the Cantabrian and Asturian wars of 26-25 B . C . , founded Emerita not long afterwards,
8
9

and remained as provincial legatus, to the discomfiture o f the inhabitants, until at least
22 B . C . A discrepancy regarding hispraenomen between manuscripts o f D i o " and the
10

coins does not warrant Gardthausen's" unacceptable hypothesis that a later P. Carisius
struck the issue i n commemoration o f his father's exploits. The coinage o f Carisius,
13 14
composed o f products o f the newly organised mines, is called by Sydenham 'one o f
the turning points i n the monetary history o f the period'; but the theory of Augustus's
1
The distinction of Lenormant, La monnaie dans 7 PIR. n, p. 99. 422. 2

Vantiquity n, p. 149, is unsound. Syme, AJP. L V , 1934, pp. 293 ff.; cf. Orosius
8

* Only two of them are cited in the British vi, 21. 10; Florus 11, 33. 56; Dio L I I I , 25. 8.
Museum Catalogue devoted to this subject. Syme, l.c p. 307.
9

3 BMC. Imp. Aug. 298 ff., weighing 176*0- Ibid. p. 302; cf. Dio L I V , 5. 1; unjustifiably
1 0

137«o grains. Spectrogram 35. doubted by Faucci, Historia, ix, 1935, p. 139.
4
Ibid. 302, weighing 253*0 grains. L I I I , 25. 8, Th©s.
1 1

5 Cf. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies 11, 2. p. 375; vide Syme, l.c. p. 316; Groag,
n

frappees sous VEmpire romain, I , pp. 117 f., no. 395. PW. ill, 1592.
6
BMC. Imp. Aug. 288; cf. Bahrfeldt, NZ. 3 Richmond, AJA L X X X V I I , 1930, pp. 98 ff.
X
9

xxviii, 1^96, p. 80. 1 4

NC. 1920, p. 44.
iio C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
complete surrender o f moneying-rights i n 28 which warranted this statement has been
shown b y a Cypriot mintage to be baseless (p. 80). However, these issues possess
features o f great importance to our constitutional theme.
The silver coinage o f Carisius is relevant to the present study by reason o f two
contrasts i t presents to his aes. I n the first place, trie latter invariably mentions the
1
tribunician power o f the princeps, while the denarii, except for one hybrid, always
employ his praenomen imperatoris instead. Thus the aes and silver cite powers distinct
2
in content and origin I t is uncertain whether any o f the silver was struck after his
assumption, or reassumption, o f the tribunicia potestas i n 23 B.C. (p. 452). But that, i n
any case, the distinction between the two titles is due primarily to different metal and
scope rather than to difference o f date can be inferred from a second consideration.
Carisius is L E G . P R O PR(aetore) on the silver,* and L E G . A V G V S T I on the aes*
The first o f these contrasts is explained b y the administrative machinery o f the aes
as revealed b y the primary official coinages. Carisius coins denarii as the last o f a line
o f officers who sign the so-called 'imperatorial' silver.* His imperium is subordinate
6
to that o f Augustus, which is accordingly emphasised b y the praenomen (p. 442): this
was one o f the military provinces, i n which i t had for years been part o f the function
o f the Imperator to provide coinage i n the precious metals. O n the other hand, as has
been shown, the aes coinages, which often bear the formula SC, were issued Caesaris
auctoritate: on them, therefore, the praenomen imperatoris is omitted, as irrelevant to
their mintage. I t is reasonable to infer that the formula which instead occurs, tribunicia
potestate, is, like it, closely connected w i t h the executive functions which produced the
coinage on which i t appears so significandy. I t w i l l be shown i n a later chapter that
the potestas was, indeed, actually the vehicle o f the auctoritas i n its most potent aspect
(p. 446): i t supplied the ius senatus consulendi. I t was this which enabled co-operation
w i t h the senate b y the senatus consulta auctore Caesare, whose existence has already
been pointed out. Besides this coinage, there is evidence to show that, even i n the
' imperial' provinces, this method was preferred to the imperium for administrative
purposes (p. 435). Thus the substitution o f T R . P. for I M P . on the aes has much
point.
This particular contrast between aes and silver bears on a more general contrast—
the frequent appearance o f SC on the former coinages, and its rarity on the latter.
Under Augustus, o f course, that formula is far from indispensable to the official aesiJ
it occurs chiefly as a reminder o f the co-operative process b y which the coinage was
produced, and is absent, for example, on the issues o f Carisius. Again, SC occurs
1
Copenhagen; BMC. Imp. p. 52 n. 5 Cf. Mattingly, RC. p. 34. Described as cas-
* Cf. Groh, Studi Riccohono, 11, p. 3. trenses nummi by Lenormant, Daremberg and
3
Except on a quinarius (BMC. Imp. Aug. 293), Saglio, 1, 2. 120.
which has no room for more than L E G . 6
Cf. Cardinali, Augustus (1938), p. 162.
4
Except on an as (ibid. 303) (PI. V, 1 o), which has 7 It is limited to Rome (where it is not invariable)
L E G . alone: possibly the earliest. and to the Eastern group described above, p. 98.
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y LEGATI AUGUSTI 121
1
occasionally—in special circumstances—even on the gold and silver, n o w as later.*
The complete distinction i n this respect between official aes on the one hand, and gold
and silver on the other, has not yet appeared. Yet even at this date the formula appears
to have some special relevance to the aes alone, and the coinage o f Carisius may provide
a clue to the character o f this. T R . P. on the aes indicates the warrant o f a senatus
consultum; but I M P . on the silver demonstrates its absence. Carisius's issues follow
very closely on the reform o f the coinage: they w i l l therefore illustrate better than
any other series phenomena making their appearance at that time, such as the general
limitation o f SC to the aes pieces. The aes were the product o f the executive process
T R . P . — C A . — S . C . , but the denarii were not; i t cannot, however, be ascertained
whether this distinction remained valid throughout Augustus's principate, since the
mints o f his subsequent gold and silver issues are very imperfectly known (p. 122).
I f they can all be attributed to 'imperial' provinces, there is no reason to believe that
the distinction lapsed: but if, as seems more probable, some o f the mints were i n
'senatorial' territory—where, as w i l l be shown, Augustus possessed no imperium
whatsoever (pp. 427ff.)—then the process T R . P . — C A . — S . C was no doubt used,
but the formula S.C omitted merely i n accordance w i t h precedent. The question
whether the coinage itself was 'senatorial' or 'imperial'—in any case meaningless as
regards the aes—will i n that case become irrelevant to the gold and silver also.
The second contrast—between L E G . P R O PR. and L E G . A V G V S T I — i s less
important, but seems equally deliberate. The former title is i n the tradition o f the
'imperatorial' silver, coined b y officials w i t h imperium subordinated to an imperium
maius, like P. Carisius i n the war-emergency. The auspices, o f course, remained w i t h
the princeps, and this aspect is emphasised b y Carisius's title on the aes. This coinage
was provided b y civilian machinery: thus, avoiding the title pro praetore, Carisius
expresses the source o f the auctoritas which produced his coinage, just as i t produced
the SC issues i n another 'imperial' province, Syria.

O n another bronze series, including dupondii* and asses,* appears the bare head o f
3

Augustus to left, w i t h the inscription I M P . A V G . D I V I F., and, on the reverse—

accompanied on the dupondii b y other symbols—a round object which has been
6
variously explained (cf. Pi. V , 6). H a y m thought i t was the Cretan labyrinth, and
allots the issue to Cnossus; du MersanV imagination discovered the circus o f
8
Saguntum. Delgado propounded the view o f an alliance o f Saguntum and Sego-
9
briga. This may be rejected like other similar alliances, African and Spanish; but his
interpretation o f the type as a shield is correct. A similar shield appears on Emeritan
1
E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 1 ff., 656; cf. pp. ci n. 5. 6
Tresor Britannique, 11, p. 117.
* Ibid. p. clxxxvii. 7
Rn. 1846, p. 10.
3 BM, Levis sale 247 (illustrated): Spectrogram 30. 8
Cf. Palosy, Discertacion sobra el theatro y circo
4
296 grains (BM). de Sagunto (1793)*
5 Av. c 171 grains. 9
Cf. below, pp. 185 n. 6,188 n. 12, 339.
122 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C-A.D. 14
denarii o f P. Carisius, together w i t h a Spanish knife and spear-head,* w i t h which the
1

two symbols on the dupondii are clearly identifiable. Attribution to Spain is con-
3
firmed by style and provenance, and by the occurrence o f countermarks o f Saguntum;
but ascription to a local series is rendered impossible by the absence both o f ethnic and
o f local magistrate's name. The issue must, then, be official. A n attempt at a closer defini-
tion raises problems o f general significance. Besides the Emeritan analogies, the style is
akin to aes o f Patricia in Baetica, and the heads to a group of denarii , which have—since
4

their portraits resemble that aes—been attributed b y Laffranchi5 to the same mint.
But there is a second subdivision o f the present series. Asses o f a totally different
style (Pi. I V , i 8 ) have heads closely imitated from several denarii which belong
6 1

to the ' Caesaraugusta' group discussed i n connection w i t h the Macedonian aes o f

Primus (?) (p. 82). Moreover, all specimens i n this subdivision have a shield only,
without spear- and knife-head (Pi. V , 6), and a similar shield appears unaccompanied
on the same group o f denarii?
Thus, i n accordance w i t h the current attribution o f their models ( t h e ' Patricia' and
'Caesaraugusta' denarii), the t w o categories o f aes which have been described would
be attributed to Farther and Nearer Spain respectively. But i t appears necessary to
conclude that such a view is based on a complete fallacy. Currency i n the precious
metals circulated everywhere: i t is therefore wholly incorrect to assign i t to mints on
the grounds o f portrait-similarities to local aes, since the latter merely imitated the
ubiquitous denarii, not vice versa.? Thus the mints of'Caesaraugusta' and 'Patricia',
1 0
whose value even as generic appellations has been rightly doubted by H i l l and
Regling," must be eliminated.
1
BMC. Imp. Aug..277. and municipia will supply further evidence of the
2
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cx; cf. Sanders, Arch- incorrectness of LafFranchi's principle: the * Patricia'
aeologia, L X I V , 1912, pp. 205 ff. 3
Hill, p. 127. group, supposedly of Baetican affinities, is imitated
4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 344 ff. Note especially the —in preference to the * Caesaraugusta' group—on
resemblance of Levis sale, 247. the aes of at least seven cities of Tarraconensis. Thus
5
Rat. xxv, 1912, pp. 155 f.; id. La moneta\ione too even some of the aes coins of Carisius copy
di Augusto, pp. 23-5. The generic appellations are models from the * Caesaraugusta' group rather than
retained by Mattingly, l.c. pp. cviii f. from Emerita itself. Nor were these prototypes
6
BM, Vatican, Naples, Turin, av. c. 181 grains. imitated solely by the Spanish cities. For example,
7
BM; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 339; others, cf. 335. Corinth utilises each of them, in the same way as
8
BMC. Imp. Aug. 334. Gallic local and official aes—e.g. of Arausio(?) and
9
The present study has afforded the writer Nemausus—imitate the portraits of Eastern denarii:
abundant proofs of this. For example, Lafrranchi presumably, but for their mint-mark, Lafrranchi
(Rat. 1916, p. 294; vide Bahrfeldt, Munistudien 1, would attribute the Corinthian issues to Spain, and
1923, p. 125) erred in allotting the principal C A those of Nemausus to the East. Finally, it will be
issues to Lycia: both the Lycian League and the CA shown (p. 3 51) that the peregrine cities of Asia choose
mints naturally used the same official models in their models with especial frequency from the denarii
widely separated regions. Similarly, the * Caesar- assigned by LafFranchi to Patricia (p. 467). See also
augusta' group is copied on the issue of Primus (?), pp. 222,269,83,470. 1 0
P. 98; cf. n. 73-
which is of Balkan provenance. The Roman colonies 1 1
Phil. Woch. 1924, pp. 364 ff.
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y LEGATI AUGUSTI 123
I t is, however, possible to find a use for the denarii i n connection w i t h the present
issues: but this is o f a chronological rather than a geographical order. I t has been
shown, i n connection w i t h the mintage o f Primus (?) (p. 83), that t h e ' Caesaraugusta'
group was not, as has been thought, contemporary w i t h the' Patricia' series, but was its
predecessor, giving way to i t i n c. 19 B.C. Thus the use of prototypes from both groups
for this Spanish aes w i t h the type o f a shield signifies the order i n which the two sub-
1
divisions were issued. The general principle that one o f the latest models from the
official series was copied by the aes o f provincial cities and governors can be substituted
for the false geographical arguments initiated by Laffranchi. When a new portrait o f
Augustus came into fashion, i t was likely to be used for aes by officials and by
communities throughout the Empire—having first been popularised b y the denarii?
Thus portrait-resemblances, which have been used to such i l l effect, can i n general only
be employed to establish a terminus post quern. I f , as on these asses w i t h the shield and
on the issues o f Primus (?), more than one model from the same group is employed, i t
is probable that the time-lag is negligible; and if, as is again the case w i t h the present
issue, a prototype from a subsequent group follows, there is a strong presumption that
the two categories of aes correspond approximately in date with the two groups o f denarii. 3

Style (rather than the dangerous criterion o f portraiture) suggests that the later
subdivision o f this series, which uses the 'Patricia' model, originated from Farther
Spain, which was probably still one province. Specimens are found i n the north-
4
western area: and the prototype o f the earlier group (c. 25-23 B.C.) confirms that they
too, like the denarii, were issued for the needs o f the war, and so i n theprovincia Ulterior.
The mint or mints cannot be identified. The abandonment o f these short-lived military
issues i n favour o f a system o f city-coinages was no doubt necessitated b y the diffi-
culties o f communication and distribution i n the peninsula,* and facilitated by the
aptitude o f the cities for the responsibility and privilege (p. 297).

2. G A L L I A C O M A T A : Tribal M i n t , Lugdunum(?)
6
A number o f unsigned issues can be traced to this country also. One o f these, o f
rough fabric, has A V G V S T V S , w i t h his bare head to right, and on the reverse
IMP X and a horse (Pi. I V , 19). The style is Gallic: the type is the symbol o f ' free'
Gaul, and occurs on coinage o f all parts of the provincia ComataJ The coin can be safely
1 4
The eclecticism of peregrine cities is also of E.g. at Citania de Trona, Pontevedra (Garcia
interest in this respect (pp. 349 ff.). and Cuevillas, MJSEA. cxv [iv, 1930], p. 37). The
* Naturally, however, allowance must be made definition as pequeho bronce could scarcely refer to
for arbitrary circumstances, such astime-lag,or the the other variety of as, which is flatter and so
individual preference of a die-engraver for an obso- larger.
lete portrait, or of a Greek for Hellenistic styles. 5 Cf. Syme, CAH. x, p. 343.
3
An attempt to reconstruct the history of parallel 6
Paris=M. S. ix, 247. 41.
silver issues is beyond the bounds of the present 7
E.g. De La Tour, Atlas des monnaies gauloises,
study: but see suggestions on p. 468. 4561, etc
124 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
attributed to a Gallic tribe, though its legends suggest the co-operation or command o f
a Roman authority. A . Hirtius had previously utilised a tribal mint i n the same way
(p. 3). His issue and this are interruptions i n the 'autonomous' coinage o f the tribes,
which were otherwise permitted to use their own money and their own types at least
1
until the principate o f Tiberius, by whom the order for withdrawal was probably
2
given. The coin appears to be dated to 15-13 B . C . , the time o f Augustus's visit; this
provides an explanation for the unusual introduction o f the head and title o f the
princeps at a tribal centre. 3

A second piece, reading I M P . CAESAR (his bare head to right) (Pi. V , 9) and
4

A V G V S T V S D I V I F. (bull to left), is reattributed by Mattingly from c. 27-25 B . C . *

to c. 10 B . C . , since the bull is clearly imitated from denarii o f about the later date. But 6

its distinctive style, metal (orichalcum^), and titulature speak strongly against attribu-
tion to the official mint which struck the contemporary and entirely different ' A l t a r '
8
money. The type o f a bull is found, and widely imitated by tribal moneyers, i n
0 10 12
Gallia Comata and Narbonensis and even i n Britain" and perhaps Spain; i t perhaps
refers to Augustus's sobriquet Thurinus. * The existence ( i f true) o f a similar coin
1

inscribed C O P I A (p. 208) perhaps indicates that a special mint for small aes (whose
deficiency i n Gaul is underlined by the frequency o f half-coins i n the early ' A l t a r '
14
series ) existed at Lugdunum itself, by the side of, but separately from, the official
mint.
Another orichalcum ^ piece, w i t h the type o f an eagle, has a laureate portrait (Pi. V ,
1 16

8) whose truncation and general appearance are imitated from late denarii from L u g -
dunum ( A . D . 2-14), not from earlier denarii (15—11 B . C . ) or asses (c. 10 B . C . ) .
17
1 8
Its 1 0

1
Strack, BJ. cxn, 1904, p. 426; cf. Neuss find, native revolt. It is not Caesarian,paceHuber,Jahrb.
correcting Willers, NZ. xxxii, 1900, p. 136. der Ges.f. bthringische Geschichte, xi, 1896.
2
Annalen des Vereins fur Nassauische Altertums- E.g. T . Pom. Sex. f., ibid. p. 256 n. Senckler,
1 0

kunde, xxxiv, pp. 38 f. Jahrbucher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im

3
In the same way British tribal gold and silver Rheinlande, xxi, 1854, p. 84, plausibly considers
(BM) represent Tiberius and perhaps Augustus. him the grandson of Caesar's secretary Cn. Pompeius
4
BMC. Imp. Aug. p. 93, 564. Trogus, the brother of the historian of that name,
5
Grueber, NC. 1904, pp. 221 ff. and so the kinsman of a praefectus Vocontiorum—
6
E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 464 ff. no doubt the position of T . Pom. Sex. f. also. Vide,
7
Spectrogram 25. It is possible, though not also, Justin X L V , 521.
probable, that a small Gallic orichalcum quarry was E.g. Cunobeline; Evans, Coins of the Ancient
1 1

used (Forrer, Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie, 1909, p. 458; Britons, pi. X I I , 15; Hu. H I , p. 725. 37.
cf. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, p. 61 n. 6). 1 2
C£.Lorichs,Recherchesnumismatiques,p. 80.403.
8
E.g. Blanchet, Traiti, p. 254 n., etc. Found 1 3
Blanchet, Comptes rendus des stances de
throughout Gaul. VAcadimie des Inscriptions, 1919, p. 134.
9
E.g. Ambactus, ibid. p. 254 n. 7; Germanus, 1 4
Strack, BJ. C V I I I , 1902, pp. 1 ff.
ibid. p. 255 n. 8; cf. Coutil, Inventaire, pp. 18, 39. *5 Spectrogram 24. BMC. Imp. Aug. 561 ff.
1 6

Kremer, Publications de la section des sciences his- E.g. ibid. 534, 511, 515.
1 7

toriques de VInst. Gd.-ducal de Luxembourg, L X V I I , As Mattingly, ibid. p. cxviii n. 3.

1 8

1938, p. 13, suggests that this was the issue of a XQ

As Sydenham, NC. 1917, p. 76.
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y LEGATI AUGUSTI 125
1
provenance is Gallic, and the individual technique and lettering, coarser than those o f
contemporary 'Altar* coins, suggest that i t too should not be allotted to the larger
official mint. That these orichalcum pieces, though not lighter than Roman copper
quadrantes? are actually semisses is suggested by the much greater weight o f a copper
semis* at the end o f the reign, which combines an obverse adapted from the ' A l t a r '
pieces w i t h the familiar reverse type o f C. L . Caesares. This change o f metal creates
uniformity w i t h the official mint; a similar semis o f Tiberius is found later. The 4

separate existence of some workshop for small denominations w i t h a limited circulation

is confirmed by the persistence o f little ' A l t a r ' coins o f poor style and varying metal
6
w i t h the heads not only o f Tiberius 5 and Claudius, when the larger mint had closed,
8
but even o f Nero 7 when i t was reopening i n another form.

3. SYRIA: Sidon(?), Berytus, Laodicea(?)

O f the next coins to be signed by an official i n an 'Imperial' province two specimens
9
have been published, none attributed. Rauch described a coin i n his collection reading
ZEBAZT. AY (bare head r. of Augustus) and PHrAOZ ZTPAT The reverse
legends end, i n his version, w i t h a number o f incomprehensible signs. But he read them
upside down. They are actually the letters HTOZ, and the whole legend, as an extant
10
piece shows, is P H r A O I ZTPATHRDZ (PL I V , 21). The obverse reading is un-
certain. Another" has ZEBAZTO* • • • ; on the reverse i t reads PHrAOZ only, like a
smaller c o i n , " which has a star for type and apparently lacks an obverse legend (Pi. I V ,
20). The heads o f all but the last show a striking resemblance i n features and style—
i f allowance is made for wear—to local coins o f Balanea (PL X I I , 20) (p. 331) and
Berytus (PL I X , 10) (p. 260), towns on the Phoenician coast. O n general grounds,
and because they are o f inferior style, both these local pieces are likely to imitate the
issues o f Regulus rather than to be their prototype. The Phoenician origin o f Regulus's
series, which the local analogies suggest, is confirmed by a similarity o f reverse plan
13 14
to coins o f Berytus and Damascus, and b y a line-beading that is peculiar to this
region. * A terminus post quern is supplied for Regulus's coinage by his smallest piece,
1

1 6
which has a head closely copied from Eastern silver coins o f c. 20-18 B . C . The issue,
1
then, is Phoenician or Syrian, ? and was made not long after c. 20 B . C .
The lack of ethnic would be unparalleled on a Greek local coin; Regulus is a Roman,
1
E.g. Strack, BJ. cxn, 1904, pp. 419 ff., also Rn. 7 Ibid. p. 279 n.; Paris (copper), Copenhagen.
1894, pp. 24 f. (latter doubtful; cf. Blanchet, Traiti, Mattingly, BMC. Imp. pp. clxiii f.
8

p. 216). BB. v, 1870, p. 30; cf. Boutkowski, DN. 2631.

9

3
E.g. eagle type 48-5 grains (BMC. Imp. Aug. 1 0
Wad. 7451. 1 1
Vienna. 1 2
Wad. 7452.
564); bull type 50*0-36-0 grains (BMC. Imp. Aug. 1 3
Berlin, Gotha. 1 4
E.g. Paris.
561 ff.). 5 Mommsen, ZfN. xi, 1884, p. 187.
J

3 77*o-66'2 grains (BMC. Imp. Aug. 589, etc.). Especially BMC. Imp. Aug. 682.
1 6

4 1 7
Own collection. This argument does not seem to contain the
5 BMC. Imp. p. 127, no. 62 (orichalcum—Milan), flaw in Laffranchi's similar deductions (p. 122),
6
Ibid. p. 196, no. 227. since here style, reverse plan, and beaded edge
126 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

and a Roman provincial official. But cn-pccrnyos means praetor, or might naturally be
used b y a praetorian proconsul or legatus emphasising rank rather than office; the
1

legati o f Syria-Cilicia,* on the other hand, were never o f praetorian rank but always
3
consular. Although i t is true that Greek authors often used OTpccTny6s inaccurately
and even added i t to UTTCCTOS, etc., to express imperium,* there is no reason to suppose
that a governor's coin should be lax i n such technicalities: similar Greek official issues
at Cyrene, etc. (p. 69), show that no less care i n this respect was exercised than on
governmental coins w i t h Latin inscriptions. A n explanation for Regulus's title
ZTPATHrOZ can be found i n the history o f the East during the period. Agrippa
could not have held an Eastern command continually from 23 B.C., but i t is generally
agreed that at least after his return to the Orient i n 17 B.C. he held some superior
command i n that half o f the Empire (p. 428). Dio 5 expressly states that, even during
his first visit to the East, i n Syria at least Agrippa governed in absentia by his own
CrrroarpcnTiyoi: the analogy can be extended to his second visit also. N o w both
CrTTooTpcrrriyds, the word used b y Dio, and crrpcnriyos, which is found on the present
coins, appear elsewhere as the titles o f praetorian legati (other than governors), i n
6
'imperial' provinces. The suggested attribution o f these coins to Phoenicia, and their
chronological limits, seem to necessitate the interpretation that Regulus was Agrippa's
7
representative w i t h that rank. He was probably Q. Articuleius Regulus, who is
celebrated b y an inscription o f 14 B.C. as praetor, proconsul, and legatus.
8

The proof b y these coins o f the official validity o f the title cnpcnriyos has reper-
cussions on the administrative history o f the period (p. 428). I t remains here to discuss
the location o f the issues o f Regulus within Phoenicia or its neighbourhood. Subse-
quent coins o f Syro-Cilician legati have Latin inscriptions and military types: but these
are Greek, and therefore probably for circulation i n Greek cities. N o w the 'enslave-
ment' o f Tyre and Sidon i n 20 B.C.—that is, loss o f £Aeu0epicc9—did not affect the
10
silver and bronze coinage o f the former t o w n , but caused a gap o f some years i n the
1
Sidonian issues (p. 345 ) . " I n view o f their previous plentifulness, * this hiatus is unlikely
to be accidental, especially since the recommencement o f the coinage is signalised b y
support the iconographic analogy: moreover, even 6
Magie, l.c. 11, p. 123, Vrind, De Cassii Dionis
though Regulus's coins were official, their circulation vocabulis, p. 94 n. 220.
was infinitesimal compared to mat of the'Patricia* 7
PIR. - 1, 236. 1178; cf. Liebenam, Legaten,
2

and 'Caesaraugusta' silver. p. 398.

1
Cf. Magie, De Romanorum vocabulis, etc., p. 84, CIL. IX, 331.
8

praetorian proconsul (cf. Waddington and Lebas, 9 Dio uv, 7. 6; Suet. Aug. 47; cf. Honigmann,
Voyage archiologique, ill, 409); p. 87, praetorian PW. (2R.), 11, 2226.
legatus pro praetore (BCH. xxm, 1899, p. 589). 1 0
E.g. BMC. 183 ff., silver, 20/19 B.C; 186 f.
* Still joined, Anderson, CR. XLV, 1931, pp. 1896, 17/16 B.c; bronze 18/17 B.C.
pace Gwatkin, Univ. of Missouri Studies, v, 1930. 1 1
None known between Rouvier, JIAN. iv,
3
E.g. Appian, BC. v, 10; Lydus, Demag. n, 2; 1901, 1391 (yr. 89 ==23/22 B.C.), and ibid. 1388
cf. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulaire d'Asie, (yr. 101 = 11/10 B.C.).
p. 282 n. 1; Magie, l.c pp. 62,96. " Rouvier, ibid.; previously not more than four
4
Chapot, l.c. p. 284. 5 Lin, 32.i. years pass without coinage.
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y LEG A TI AUG US TI 127
1
the appearance for the first time o f the Imperial head on many o f the bronze, and o f
the w o r d KAI(aap) on the silver.* I t seems possible that the gap was filled, and the
humiliation emphasised, b y the expedient o f this official issue at Sidon, struck b y the
praetorian legatus who was acting as governor. This interpretation is also i n accordance
w i t h the penetration o f the coinage—shown by the local portraits—to not far distant
Berytus and Balahea. W h y Tyre was not equally deprived of coining rights is obscure,
but i n numismatic research uniformity should never be expected and is seldom found.
I t is at least consistent w i t h this guess that, after Sidon's recovery o f coining privileges,
the legati coin i n Latin—and elsewhere.
The first o f these is P. Quinctilius Varus, who was legatus i n c. 7 to 3 B.C. (p. 396).
3

4
He issued—probably, to judge from his record, w i t h a heavy margin o f profit—two
or three denominations5 w i t h the following types:
I M P . CAESAR A V G V S T V S : bare head o f Augustus to right.
6
P. Q V I N C T I L I V S V A R V S (blundered i n various forms ): t w o legionary eagles
and standards.
There is no ethnic on these issues, which are clearly official. The same type occurs on
7
later colonial pieces o f Berytus (a veteran colony since c. 14 B.C. [p. 259]), to which
8
Mommsen reattributes them from Ruscino i n Gaul.9 These coins, which lack the name
o f the city or its representatives, must have been struck at the colony by the legatus.
They have the appearance o f a hasty issue for some special occasion or emergency,
and were possibly, therefore, issued i n connection either w i t h the punitive expedition
10
to Palestine after Herod's death, or w i t h the legionary movements in the governorship
o f Varus, on the occasion o f the Homanadensian W a r . "
The next issue, however, which cannot be similarly explained, shows that Varus's
coins may equally have been ordinary peace-time currency for the legions. Q. Caecilius
Metellus Creticus Silanus, who was legatus o f the same province at least from A . D .
u n t
12/13 il deposition i n A . D . 17," is recorded on a number o f issues before and
after the death o f Augustus. A number o f these can be shown to be colonial (p. 260);
13 14
but there are a few small coins which are apparently official—though style, type and
15
provenance again require attribution to Berytus. Some o f these have as their type an
1 6 1 7 1 8
eagle, and on the obverse S I L A N V S A V G . , S I L A N . A V G . , or S I L A N V S P. A V G .
1
Ibid. no. 1444, yr. 102 = 10/9 B.C The error is repeated faithfully by Miss Newby
* BMC. 113, yr. 106=6/5 B.C. (p. 87) despite warnings by Newell (ibid. n. 46).
3 PIR. H I , p. 118. 27. 1 0
Momigliano, CAH. x, p. 338.
4
Velleius 11, 117. 1 1
Syme, JRS. X X I I I , 1933, pp. 24, 29 ff.; Ander-
5 Macdonald, NC. 1904, p. 107. son, l.c pp. 271 ff., 280.
6
E.g. BMC. 56, P. Q V I N C T I L L V S W R S ; " PIR. 11, 10. 64; cf. Liebenam, Legaten, p. 369
2

Berlin, P. Q V I H V L I L L L R V S ; Gotha, n. 11.

x
QVHIVCn ; ibid. TILWVRVS. * Coins of Berytus similarly blundered (in trade,
7
E.g. BMC. 58, 61, etc. Milan). 1 4
von Weckbecker, l.c
8
ZfN. xi, 1884, p. 187. x
5 Cf. Mommsen, ZfN. xi, 1884, p. 187.
9 As e.g. Boutkowski, DN. 11, p. 1395. 2380. 1 6
Gotha. BMC. 54 (39 grains).
1 7 1 8
Berlin.
128 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14
1
That these were struck i n Augustus's lifetime is suggested b y a piece seen by Rouvier
w i t h the first o f these legends, and the head and name o f that princeps. There can be
2
little doubt that von Weckbecker is right i n interpreting P. A V G . as the common
formula Permissu Augusti, rather than as the unparalleled and hypothetical Pontifex
Augusti, or as Pontifex w i t h the Nominative AVG(ustus) independently i n the field. 3

I f P(ermissu) AVG(usti) is accepted, the coins w i l l provide confirmation o f the

auctoritas principis* b y which, as has been already indicated, official aes was issued i n
'imperial' and 'senatorial' provinces alike. The same interpretation establishes that,
although colonia Berytus can coin PERMISSV S I L A N I (p. 260), the governor's own
coinage there needs the sanction o f Augustus's auctoritas. I t is clear that the executive
activity o f the princeps has been modified since the coinage o f P. Carisius (p. 119).
Then the emphasis was on the tribunicia potestas, which, as w i l l be shown, was exer-
cised through the senate (p. 448); now the mediation o f that body is dispensed w i t h .
This accords w i t h the gradual crystallisation o f the auctoritas o f Augustus, but more
particularly w i t h the aggrandisement o f his consilium i n A . D . 13. Thenceforward its
decrees had the validity o f senatus consulta,* but did not, no doubt, bear that name,
since its advice was tendered to the princeps, not the senate (p. 453). Thus the gover-
nors o f A . D . 13-14, like Silanus, could obtain the right to coin, no longer from the
senate, but from the consilium, now the medium o f the princeps executive activity.
9

The relevant formula is correcdy simplified from exs.c, auctoritate Caesaris, tribunicia
potestate to permissu Augusti.
Yet the colonial coinage o f Berytus, where Silanus's official issue was struck, was
minted, not permissu Augusti, but permissu Silani. This distinction o f formulae bears
witness to a natural precaution exercised b y Augustus against the uncontrolled com-
mandeering o f city-mints and the infringement o f local privilege b y his subordinates.
He was willing for such mints to strike their own coinage without reference to Rome
itself, so long as his own cognisance o f the more important official issues was maintained.
6
The type o f an eagle on a similar small coin only inscribed A V G . links the issues
o f Silanus w i t h a further group—likewise unsigned b y a legatus—whose types include
simpuhmO and lituus? These are all ascribed by Rouvier to Berytus. So is another series
which has the inscription CAESAR but a late laureate head o f Augiistus(?), and on the
reverse a dolphin and trident i n wreath ( P i . V , 13).* The type seems to indicate an
official character, but the style is not that o f the official series o f Berytus or o f any
other o f the issues which proceeded from that mint. The coins are, however, Syro-
Phoenician i n appearance, and must have originated either from a commandeered
1
JIAN. ill, 1900, p. 278, no. 494. Geschichte der romischen Kaiser, 1, p. 134.
2
L.c. BMC Phoenicia, p. 53, Rome (36 grains).
6

3 Cf. Bahrfeldt, BMB. 1902, p. 6. 7 Rouvier, JIAN. in, 1900, no. 489.
4
Cf. CIL. x, 5393, ex auctoritate Ti. Caesaris Not *S* (von Weckbecker, Lc. p. 399. 3).
8

Augusti et permissu eius. Rouvier, l.c nos. 486 f.; Paris, BMC p. 58. 48
9

5 Dio LVI, 28. 2; cf. Hammond, p.168; Dessau, (52*8, 37*0 grains).
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y LEGATI AUGUST! 129
1
city-mint or a legionary station i n that area. Laodicea is a probable choice, since the
sites o f other camps would not warrant the marine type.*
The omission o f all names but theirs indicates that Q. Silanus and P. Carisius were
the responsible agents for the various coins that they sign. Their signatures provide
valuable evidence for the superiority at this date, even i n financial matters, o f legatus
to procurator. But there are other ways also o f proving that at this period the pro-
3
curators did not yet possess independent control over provincial finances. Official
coinages already discussed have indicated that the senatus consultum, and coinages
bearing its mark, were current throughout the whole Empire, including the 'imperial*
provinces; the 'senatorial' treasury on which this money was based was the aerarium.
This view accords w i t h Frank's demonstration that no central 'imperial' fiscus yet
existed (p. 97): the aerarium was sufficiently controlled b y the auctoritas principis. Just
as official aes in Italy depended upon the aerarium, so, outside the peninsula, i t depended
upon the provincial departments o f the aerarium, namely the arcae or fisci, where the
funds accruing from taxes, etc., were stored to meet provincial expenses, and periodically
were handed to the central treasury. This task was no doubt performed b y the governors'
representatives, whose presence i n the aerarium is attested b y inscriptions. 4

I t is therefore only to be expected that the officials superintending the departmental

bureaux o f the 'senatorial' aerarium should have been i n the senatorial, and not the
equestrian, service. This conclusion is corroborated b y evidence concerning those i m -
portant financial operations, the censuses. These were still invariably conducted b y
senators. Special legati (often pro praetore$) for this purpose are known to have been
6 8
sent to Lugdunensis, Spain,7 etc. (even as late as Trajan ), but often also the provincial
legatus himself presided: Quirinius is a famous example. Conclusive against the
0

control, i n our period, o f such financial activity by procurators is an inscription from

the second or third century 10
w i t h primus umquam eq[ues] R[omanus] a censibus acci-
piendis.
11
Provincial legati and senatorial officials were bound as much as procurators
to the unique auctoritas o f Augustus: there was no reason yet for the distrust which was
to make the latter into influential spies, instead o f co-operative lieutenants and sub-
ordinate economic advisers." Even a single case o f recalcitrance, b y Volumnius i n
13 14
Syria, may not be relevant, since his position is uncertain. There was no 'dyarchy'.
1
Tac. Ann. 11, 79. 3; cf. Anderson, CAH. x,
8
Mommsen, Inscriptiones Confoederationis Hel-
p. 283, for the camp. veticae Latinae, 175.
* Anderson, l.c pp. 282 f. 9 Josephus, AJ. xvii, 13. 5; Luke ii, 2.
3
Pace Waddington, Pastes des provinces asia-
1 0
Kubitschek, PW. 111, 1920.
tiques, p. 661. 11
Orelli, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 6944; cf.
4
Delamare, Rev. de phil. 1895, p. 131 — OGIS. Boissieu, Inscriptions antiques de Lyon, p. 269.
11, 494. [But see Last, JRS. 1944, pp. 58f.] 1 4
The comprehensive commission of Licinus was
5 For the imperium of legati, see below, p. 136 n. 1. an isolated experiment; cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 119.
6
CIL. xiii, 6558. 1 3
Josephus, AJ. xvi, 369; cf. 277, 283, 344.
7 CIL. x, 680, etc.; cf. van Nostrand, ES. in, 1 4
Volkmann, Mimchener Beitrage Papyrus-
p. 145. forschung, xxi, 1935, p. 157 - 5> calk
n n
P " i m ro
130 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C-A.D. 14
Thus there is evidence o f many kinds to show that the procurators did not yet play
an independent part i n the conduct o f provincial finances. I n the 'imperial' provinces
the legati themselves controlled the normal financial operations: the signatures o f
Spanish and Syrian governors appear on the coinage which they organised. I t is to
Creticus Silanus legatus himself that permission to coin was extended from Rome; he
was the responsible financial official i n his province. I t has been pointed out that the-
consilium Augusti, which granted him permission, could decree w i t h the validity o f a
senatus consultum, and so could govern the aerarium. The expression Permissu Augusti
in no way alludes to Augustus'spatrimonium: its relevance is to the national treasury,
controlled b y the auctoritas principis which this formula represents (p. 438). N o r does
it justify the assumption that the patrimonium and the treasury were indistinguishable.
1
Their extinction is attested b y D i o and confirmed b y Augustus's o w n record o f gifts
2
from one to the other, although the very size o f these donations made the distinction
3
sometimes seem merely formal. But i t was more than that; and, w i t h all his consti-
tutional discretion* Augustus never tried to dissemble the fact that he was princeps.
Many coinages combine to show that the authority o f princeps and senate was valid i n
every part o f the Empire alike (p. 435). Thus the governors o f 'imperial' provinces
were both legati Augusti and representatives o f the only national treasury, the sena-
torial aerarium. I n 'imperial', as i n 'senatorial' provinces (p. 428), the permission o f
Augustus is a product o f his auctoritas—not o f his imperium, which would not justify
such a phrase (p. 439).

curator; but Bleckmann, Klio, xvn, 1921, p. 111, * RG. 17.

believes that he was a Jew of Herod's court, and 3
Cf. Duff, Personality in Roman Private Law,
distinct from the Roman official of that name, and p. 59. This aspect is emphasised by Nilsson, Eranos,
ascribes moreover to the latter a military office. xn (1912), pp. 95 ff.
1
LIII, 16.1; cf. Rice Holmes, Architect, 11, p. 177.
 P R O V I N C I A L ISSUES B Y E Q U E S T R I A N G O V E R N O R S i

E. P R O V I N C I A L ISSUES BY E Q U E S T R I A N GOVERNORS

It was natural that knights who were acting vice praesidis should superintend coinage
1

for their own provinces, where this was needed, just as they appear to have counter-
marked i t (p. 95). T w o such series, each fulfilling a special requirement, are known.

1. JUDAEA: Caesarea Samariae(?)

The conversion o f the Judaean ethnarchy o f Archelaus into a Roman province i n
A . D . 6* was the occasion for a series o f little coins, o f pitiful style. The legend is
3

KAICAPOC,* but there is a discreet avoidance o f Roman portraits or types* which

might cause offence to the Jews' sensitive religious susceptibilities. The earliest coins
bear the date 36 by the Actian era, that is, A . D . 6;7 the province was not important
6

8
enough for a new era. However, the procurators had troops under their command,
and possessed the ins gladii:? according to the latest view they owed no allegiance to
10
the governors o f Syria. The coins were probably struck at Caesarea, which was the
official Residence." Their wide diffusion " bears witness to their official character. Both
Coponius (6-9) and M . Ambibulus (9-12) struck two issues, but, like the equestrian
officials whose coins we have next to discuss, they refrained from competing with
'senatorial' governors by placing their names on their money.

2. E G Y P T : Alexandria
Throughout Augustus's principate the prefects o f Egypt issued coinage at Alexandria,
13
no doubt b y virtue o f their characteristic decree or 8icVrccyuoc and under the i m -
1
mediate control o f the ISioAoyoc. * This currency could maintain itself at purely
15
nominal values, since Egypt was a land commercially self-contained and relied on its
1
Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbe- Horovitz, Rev. de phil. 1939, p. 51; id.,
1 0

amten, p. 181 n. 4; cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. lix. Revue beige de philologie et d'histoire, xvn, 1938,
2
Cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 215. p. 781.
3
Cf. Schiffer, Arithuse, 1930, p. 9. Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, n ,
1 1 4

4
Hill, BMC. Judaea, pp. ci ff. pp. 209 ff.; cf. Hill, BMC. Judaea, p. ci.
* Cf. Pick, ZfN. xiv, 1887, p. 306.
1 2
E.g. found in Gallia Narbonensis and Aqui-
6
Pick, I.e.; cf. Hill, l.c. p. ci: not Ar (Madden, tania, Blanchet, NZ. 1913, p. 195; in Epirus
Coins of the Jews, p. 174; cf. Head, HN, p. 809). (Feniki), Ugolini, Albania antica, n, p. 167; etc.
Pick, l.c, pace de Saulcy, Numismatique de la f Vide Wilcken, Hermes, LV, 1920, pp. 27 ff.;
7 3

Terre Sainte, p. 70, Mommsen, St.R. ill, p. 307 n. 1, Cuq, Rev. hist, de droit francais et Stronger, iv ser.
based on wrong coin. xi, 1932, p. 112.
8
Pick, l.c. Milne, Catalogue of the Alexandrian coins in the
1 4

0
Momigliano, CAH. x, p. 339; cf. Josephus, AJ. Ashmolean Museum, p. xviii.
XVIII, 3. '5 Id. JEA. 1927, pp. 135 ff.
132 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
1
export trade. Augustus made no initial attempt to restore the standard that had
2
depreciated under Cleopatra. But his principate is notable for a series o f fluctuations
3
and experiments, chiefly to test Egyptian feeling. The conservatism o f the first coinage
after Actium has already been noted (p. 68). Subsequent issues, still including pieces
o f 8o, 40, 20 and ?5 copper drachmaef diminish i n weight 5 until c. 8-7 B . C . , when
there is a reorganisation on the standard o f the denarius.* O n this new basis begins a
more plentiful output o f diobols, obols and dichalca: but Milne9 points out that the
7 B

10
problem o f the debased Ptolemaic silver tetradrachm was not solved. Coins o f
Augustus's Egyptian series, being official, are occasionally found even i n the West,"
i n spite o f their high fiduciary value.
The Ptolemaic type o f the first series (p. 68) gives way to imitations o f official
cistophori (c. 15 B . C . ) . Later we find the Egyptian deity Euthenia (c. ? A . D . 1), and the
13
1 2

14
Greek Athena and Nike (c. ? A . D . 12). T o complete the hotch-potch, the Capricorn
symbol occurs after 2 B . C . * Earlier i n the principate, a feature unique on the official
1

coinage is introduced by the portrayal o f Livia (Pi. V , 12), sometimes as AIOYIA

16 17
IEBAZTOY. This development was unknown to Hellenism; the succession claimed
18 10
by Augustus and shown by his use o f the regnal era was Pharaonic, and made its
appeal to the Egyptian nation itself. I n this sense i t is not untrue to say w i t h V o g t :
Die Kaiserin hat...in Agypten an der Herrschergewalt ihres GemahIs...teiIgenommen; 20

indeed, Livia's auctoritas i n her own right was enormous. 21

But his additional statement
1
Johnson, AJA. xxxvm, 1934, p. 54; cf. Cahn, NC. 1930, p. 335, Sutherland, NC. 1938, p. 311),
RS. xxvi, 1936, p. 173. Rhaetia (at Zillis: Caviezel coll., Mitt, der anti-
2
Johnson, l.c. p. 49; cf. Segre, Studi italiani di quarischen Ges. in Zurich, xxvi, 1903, p. 42),
filologia classica, iv, 1926, fasc. iv. Thus no other Lusitania (Lisbon mus.: Bayer, Diario dasprimeiras
official aes is admitted to Egypt (Johnson, ES. 11, viagens quefeipelas terras de Portugal; c£. Archeologo
p. 432, cf. Milne, JEA. vm, 1922, p. 159); but Portugues, xxiv, 1920, p. 157, ibid, xxv, 1921,
official gold and silver were current here as else- p. 132) and free Germany (Stuttgart mus., found at
where (Mommsen, Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, 1, Cannstatt: Goessler, Fundberichte aus Schwab"en,
1900, pp. 274 ff.). NF. 1, 1922, p. 97. At Dreimannsdorf bei Salis:
3 Milne, Cat. Ashmolean, p. xxxv. VerharuU. der Berliner Ges. fur Anthropologic, xxm,
4
Regling, ZfN. 1901, p. 115; cf. Milne, Cat. 1891, p. 225; cf. Acta Dorpat. 111, 6, p. 112).
Ashmolean, p. xvi. " Milne, Cat. Ashmolean, p. xxxv.
5 Milne, JEA. 1927, p. 139. *3 Ibid. 23. Ibid. 25,27. 1 4

6
Ibid. 7
Id. Cat. Ashmolean, p. xviii. 5 Ibid. 22.
X

8
Id. Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology,Wl\, Vogt, Alexandrinische Miinien, p. 14.
1 6

1916, p. 59. X
7 Ibid.
9 JEA. 1927, p. 177. 1 8
Wilcken,/ft£. 1937, p. 144; or era of KpcVrncris,
1 0
The fact that one issue contains 10 per cent of Bell, CAH. x, p. 285 n.
silver (cf. Dattari, R.it. 1902, p. 407), if of any '9 Cf. Bell, l.c. p. 285. Vogt, l.c. 20

2 1
significance at all, can be best interpreted merely as A striking manifestation of this is provided by
an attempt to gain confidence, like the high weight her vast financial interests (cf. Hirschfeld, Die
at which the as was struck at home. kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten, pp. 26 f.)—in-
11
E.g. Gaul (Blanchet, NZ. 1913, pp. 194 ff., and eluding actually a private bank (cf. Herzog, PW.
on Rhine [Mulhouse, Colmar mus.]), Britain (Hill, X V I I , 1447).
 P R O V I N C I A L ISSUES BY E Q U E S T R I A N GOVERNORS 133
that she had Munirecht is based on an untenable view o f portrait-rights (p. 228). I n a
1
country where Augustus was virtually k i n g , he could emphasise w i t h freedom the
'royal family* and his dynastic intentions: after 8 B . C . we find also the portrait o f
2
Caius. The imperialistic character o f these coins is paralleled by a unique system o f
3
personal government. A n d yet not only are the revenues o f the region—it is never
called provincial—sent, like all other moneys, into the aerariumf but Augustus can even
say Aegyptum imperio populi Romani adieci. 6
Administrative peculiarities (caused by
unwillingness to disturb an existing system) and precautions against their exploitation?
make no difference to the essential unity o f the Empire. Augustus was head o f i t and
yet outside its structure, so that he could identify his interests equally w i t h the populus
Romanus and the senatorial aerarium: all parts o f the Empire were the domain o f
princeps, senate and people alike.
1
Cf. Reinmuth, Klio Beth, xxxiv, 1935, p. 2. 3 Bell, CAH. x, pp. 284 ff.; p. 284 n. 2, dif-
Insufficiendy known proof of this fact is supplied ferences from other provinces underestimated by
by two Egyptian inscriptions (Armales du Service des van Groningen, Aegyptus, vn, 1926, pp. 189 ff.
Antiquitis de l*£gypte, ix [1909], p. 188, and Recueil, 4
Qi. Horovitz, Rev. de phil. 1939, p. 47.
xxvi, 1904, p. 52), which, as righdy interpreted by 5 Velleius 11, 39. 2.
Spiegelberg (Zeitschr. fur agyptische Sprache und RG. 27; cf. Reinmuth, Klio Beth, xxxiv, 1935,
6

Altertumskunde, X L I X , 1911, p. 85), reveal that p. 2; Zmigryder-Konopka, VIHe Congres int. des
Augustus was known as' the Romani.e., according sciences hist. 11, 1938, p. 23.
to local usage, 'the founder of the Roman dynasty'. 7
Cf. Bell, CAH. x, pp. 284 ff.; Mitteis-Wilcken,
* BMC. 34. But probably not of Tiberius: Vogt, Gruna\iige und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, 1,1,
l.c. p. 15, pace Dattari, R.it. 1900, pp. 280 ff. p. 28 n. 2; Levi, Aegyptus, v, 1924, pp. 231 ff.
134 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14

F. P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y ' S E N A T O R I A L ' G O V E R N O R S

1. H I S P A N I A B A E T I C A : Castulonian mines

Baetica is likely to have been part o f the 'imperial* province o f Farther Spain at the
date o f the war coinage w i t h a shield (p. 121); but i t was probably transferred to the
1
senate during Augustus's visit i n 15-14 B . C . From within its borders comes a coin o f
exceptional character and rarity, w i t h the legend SC on both sides. I t has a fairly late
portrait of Augustus (with lituus), and the type o f a horse.* The only known specimen
(Pi. V , 7)3 was found near el Centenillo, i n the district o f Castulo; the issue has been
4

rightly attributed to the Castulonian mines 5—still within the borders o f Baetica at this
6
date. This mintage stands alone i n the period: coinage o f mines does not reappear
7
until the second century. H i l l writes that the letters SC 'can hardly represent anything
but the usual formula senatus consuho, and i t must be merely a coincidence that they are
8
also the initials o f the company which worked the mine' —since they are stamped on
coins, buckets, seals, etc., from the same site.? However, i t should be noted that the
repetition o f the formula on the coin is entirely unusual; i t strongly suggests that both
10
the senatorial decree and the company's signature are represented. H i l l suggests
S(pcietas) C(astulonensis). The identity of the abbreviations would not cause difficulty;
formality was satisfied b y the appearance of both. A t all events, the senatorial formula
occurs at least once." I t indicates that these mines at least had already_passed into state
control: although many were still privately owned," a number had belonged to the
13
government even under the Republic. But since Castulo and its mines were still at
14
this time within the borders o f Baetica, i t is difficult to generalise from a later p e r i o d
to postulate ownership by Augustus. Control by his auctoritas, however, is scarcely
questionable: since the mines were naturally of importance to him, there is every reason
to suppose that the senatus consultum here recorded was, like those enabling other
coinages w i t h the same formula, moved Caesaris auctoritate. This was the regular
means o f interference i n the 'senatorial' sphere. There is not enough evidence to de-
1
Cf. Wallrafen, Die Einrichtung und kommuncde 7 BMC. Imp. HI, p. 234. 1106 ff.
Entwicklung der romischen Proving Lusitanien; van L.c. p. 100. 8

Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916, p. 96; Syme, RR. 9 Ibid. p. 102.

p. 395 n. 1. Mommsen, RGDA. p. 222, recants his
2
Cf. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, p. 13.
1 0

attribution of the change to Tiberius in ed. 1, v, p. 25. 11

It appears also on a mine-coin of Trajan (Egger
2
Hill and Sahdars, JRS. 1, 1911, p. 100; Mat- sale (1913) 753; cf. M. and S. n, p. 295. 769).
tingly, BMC. Imp. Aug. 304. Cf. van Nostrand, ES. m, p. 166; Albertini,
1 2

3 BM. CAH. xi, p. 493.

4
JRS. l.c. p. 103. 3 Cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 153.
J

5 Ibid.; cf. Mattingly, l.c, n. Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbe-

1 4

6
Sutherland, JRS. xxiv, 1934, p. 38. See also amten, pp. 153 ff.; Rickard, JRS. xvm, 1928,
pp. 136 f.
PP- 37, 39-
 P R O V I N C I A L ISSUES B Y ' S E N A T O R I A L ' GOVERNORS 135
termine whether his procurators already shared supervision o f the mines w i t h the
senatorial quaestors who were still the regular financial officers i n these provinces
(p. 136); but, at this stage, i t is likely that the role o f the procurators was largely ad-
visory, like that o f the princeps their master.

2-3. C Y R E N E , CNOSSUS(?)

A . Pupius Rufus, quaestor pro praetore o f Cyrenaica, issued coinage for this region
shortly after Actium w i t h Greek inscriptions and types o f local interest (p. 69). I n 27
1
the joint province o f Crete and Cyrenaica was revived, and the reorganisation o f the
aes i n 23 brought a renewal o f coinage o f Cyrenaican style and provenance, but w i t h 2

Latin legends and Roman types. IMP. A V G . T R . P O T . appears, i n a laurel-wreath

on dupondii—in imitation o f the Roman sestertii*—and i n a circle on asses; the former 4

show a sella castrensis on the reverse, while the asses have no type. These coins are
6 7
signed by P A L I K . PR.* and C A P I T O Q . The issues o f Lollius(?) Palikanus are
shown to be the earlier b y their higher weight and closer imitation o f the Roman
models: both o f these considerations suggest a date very soon after 23. There are
several parallels for the use o f PR. as an abbreviation for PR(aetor\ expressing the
rank o f a proconsul, or even perhaps for PR(o consule) (pp. 33, 61, 138,197).
The issues o f Capito, like those o f Palikanus, have a sella castrensis. This was a
variant o f the sella curulis, intended for camp use: i t was reserved for commanders,
8 0

and its presence decisively shows that Capito possessed the imperium and was quaestor
pro praetore. 10
Even i n the Republic quaestors o f double provinces had held this rank."
1
So, under Octavian, had P. Cornelius Scipio i n Achaia * and A . Pupius Rufus i n
Cret£-Cyrenaica itself. Pupius and Capito also recall the Republican custom that,
i n the event o f a governor's absence or inaccessibility, the locum tenens had regularly
13
been his quaestor —whereas at a later date the deputies o f proconsuls were their
1
Cf. Strabo xvn, 840. Lc. p. ccxxiii, for Pupius Rufus; inexplicably contra-
2
Cf. attribution of Robinson, BMC. Cyrenaica, dieted for Capito, ibid. p. cexxv.
p. ccviii. E.g. Spain (CIL. vi, 1276), Cn. Piso, cf.
1 1

3
BMC. Imp. Aug. 134, etc Borghesi, (Euvres, 1, p. 484; Macedonia-Achaia
4
BMC. Cyrenaica, p. cexxvii. ( L . Sestius, see p. 16; for L . Atratinus pro pr.,
5
Ibid. p. 120. 44. p. 393); for quaestors of Cyrene, vide Jones, CERP.
6
Paris, Munich: ibid. p. ccviii. p. 360; cf. P. Liciniuspro q. [propr. ?] (p. 35). For
7
Perhaps a son of thelllvirmonetalisof c. 47B.C.; the double quaestorship of Sicily, see p. 68.
ibid. p. cexxiv. " IG. 3580, cf. PIR. 1, 355. 1438, whose date
2

8
Ibid. p. ccxii; cf. Chapot, Daremberg and 25 B.c. is unnecessarily late. P. Scipio is exacdy
Saglio, iv, 1180, s.v., Helbig, Abh. Gottingen, paralleled by A. Pupius Rufus.
Philal-hist. Kl. NF. x, 3, 1908, p. 37. C i c Div. 2.15.4; An. vi, 4,etc; cf. Mommsen,
1 3

9 Cf. Longperier, Rev. arch. NS. xvni, 1868, St.R. 11 , p. 166. It is noteworthy that camp-
3

p. 107; Chapot, l.c construction was based on the duality ofpraetorium

1 0
Cf. Kiibler, PW. (2R.), 11,1312: also Robinson, and quaestorium.
136 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C-A.D. 14
1
legati. 2
Even under Tiberius the quaestor still had pride o f place: i n 'senatorial' as
3
in 'imperial' provinces (p. 129), the procurators were as yet comparatively obscure,
the proconsul's liaison with Rome being maintained by a representative at the aerarium.*
I t is not therefore surprising that when—in double provinces or i n other special circum-
stances (p. 141)—the task of a proconsul's chief lieutenant warranted the imperium, the
quaestor was still selected for this distinction.
I t is likely, then, that Capito held the rank o f quaestor pro praetore as deputy i
Cyrene for the proconsul o f Creta-Cyrenaica. These proconsuls generally resided at
Gortyna:* but there are special reasons for thinking that Capito's superior officer was
6
stationed elsewhere. A third issue at Cyrene bears the name o f Scato pro cos. (fp. 137):
this emphasises the peculiar position o f Capito, since his coinage is thus both preceded
and followed, at brief intervals, b y pieces w i t h the names o f proconsuls o f Creta-
Cyrenaica.7 The contrast between their titles and Capito's is striking. Elsewhere, too,
issues by governors are regular, but no Augustan quaestor signs coinage b y himself:
this was one o f the Republican customs which the princeps did not revive. I t is neces-
sary to investigate the exceptional circumstances which must have caused Capito's
interruption o f normal routine. The fragmentary historical tradition is fortunately
adequate for their reconstruction. The inclusion o f the Syrtis Minor i n Cyrenaica b y
8
the Agrippan source used b y P l i n y makes i t clear that for some time between 27 and
12 B . C . the province was enlarged.* This deduction is confirmed b y the record o f a war
1
Mommsen, l.c. n. 4; cf. Liebenam, PW. iv. 920. was in all 'senatorial* provinces superintended by
Hence the gradual attainment by these officials also the governor (Mommsen, St.R. 11, p. 267). Even
3

of a propraetorian imperium (cf. von PremersteinJ under Tiberius the procurators of Asia are only
PW. xii, 1143), which they had not necessarily had those who jdt ccOroKparopiKd xp^"«r« SIOIKOOCJI
during the Republic In the time of Augustus they (Dio LVII, 23: cf. Jackson, ed. Tac. Arm. iv, 15 n.
still were junior to the quaestors (see pp. 140 f.), and 4). The only procurator of a 'senatorial' province
are therefore unlikely to have regularly possessed honoured with a coin-portrait under Augustus,
imperium (p. 4^). An inscription, cited by Borghesi M. Pompeius Macer, owes this distinction to his
(l.c. 1, p. 484), of C. Plautius C f . Rufus leg. pro pr. prestige as amicus principis (see below, p. 389). The
of Sicily (CIL. ix, 5834) does not contradict this quaestors were still the chieffinancialofficials. On
conclusion, since (1) there is no reason to identify them vide Lauria, Annati della R. Univ. diMacerata,
him with Augustus's IHvir a.a.a.f.f. of that name 111, 1928, pp. 92 ff.
(p. 91 n. 2; Holm in, p. 530, PIR. 111,46. 360), since 4
OGIS. n, 494; cf. Delamare, Rev. de philologie,
the leg. pro pr. was C.f. and perhaps also C n . (cf. 1895, p. 131. The consuls maintained the same
CIL. ix, 6384). (2) The inscription ends with the practice, IGRR. 111, 83.
phraseprovinciadefensa. This suggests a special com- * Cf. Romanelli, CAH. xi, p. 663.
mission such as warranted, even under Augustus, 6
BMC. 39 ff.
the tide of legatus pro praetore in 'senatorial' pro- 7
Scato cannot have been proconsul of Africa,
vinces—cf. the tax-collectors. Vide also Kubitschek, since there is no record or likelihood of his consul-
PW. in, 1920. ship.
2
Cf. Dio L V I I , 14. 8
NH. v, 38; vi, 2c$.
3
The collection of stipendia was in Africa still 9 Cf. Romanelli, CAH. xi, p. 668; Gsell vm,
contracted to publicani (Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 196 pp. 164 f.
n. 3; Rostovtzeff, PW. vi. 2385; cf. ILS. 901), and
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y ' S E N A T O R I A L ' G O V E R N O R S 137
1 2
against the Marmaridae and Garamantes —far south o f the Greater and Lesser Syrtis
3
respectively—conducted b y P. Sulpicius Quirinius, apparently i n c. 15 B . C . Quirinius
4
is now generally recognised to have been at this time governor o f Creta-Cyrenaica
5 6
(not Africa or Syria ). The inclusion o f the Garamantes i n his sphere o f operations
corroborates Pliny's evidence for the enlargement ofprovincia Creta-Cyrenaica.? This
extension was suggested b y experience: L . Cornelius Balbus, whose African provincia
8
in c. 21-20 had included the Garamantes but not the Marmaridae, had, as the renewed
outbreak o f revolt indicates, been unable permanently to subjugate either o f these
powerful nations. Quirinius aimed particularly at the Marmaridae, as yet untouched,
but his command was planned for the simultaneous suppression o f their ally. N o w
while he was i n the deserts to the distant south o f his province, someone must have
remained to conduct its civil government—probably Capito. I t is not so significant
that he is called pro praetore, since the quaestor who resided at Cyrene is likely to have
always borne this title: but only the warlike circumstances o f Quirinius's governorship
could have warranted the transference o f the ordinary administration o f the province
from the proconsul to this quaestor pro praetore—and to this transference the coinag
o f Capito, interrupting the normal proconsular issues, bears witness. Quirinius bore
the same relation to his quaestor Capito as Augustus bore to his legati, who often,
like Capito, possessed imperium: but neither Capito nor the legati held the auspic
being subordinate to an imperium maius (p. 435).
Capito, then, may be attributed to c. 15 B . C . , and Palikanus to the years between
0

10
23 and c. 15. The enlargement o f the province can only have lasted a very short time,
so that i t is not surprising to find a return to proconsular coinage—under Scato." His
issues include four denominations. A coin o f c. 92-5 grains has a ram on the obverse,"
and S C A T O (monogrammed) i n a wreath on the reverse; another averaging c. 35
13
grains has the head o f Libya, and the same monogram, abbreviated, beside a serpent.
A more pretentious group includes a piece o f c. 246 grains w i t h the heads o f Augustus
1
For these vide Kees, PW. xiv, 1883. 7 Pliny's testimony makes it unnecessary to ex-
2
Vide Dessau, PW. VII, 751. plain away the Garamantes as a * collateral branch'
3
This is the most recent conclusion, of Syme, of that race to the East, as Cagnat, L c ; cf. Groag,
RR. p. 399 n. 1. An earlier date was preferred by L c 826.
Cagnat, L'armie romaine d'Afrique, p. 6; Mommsen, Cf. Groag, PW. iv, 1270; Pallu de Lessert,
8

RGDA. pp. 170 f.; Ritterling, PW. xn, 1224; and Pastes des provinces africaines, p. 70.
a later one by Zumpt, Commenta Epigraphica, 11, 9 An Augustan Capito at Cyrene (JGRR. 1,
p. 92. Quirinius's successor may perhaps have been 1026) was perhaps his freedman: his daughter's
C. Sentius Saturninus (cf. Tissot, Pastes de la name is Irene.
province romaine d'Afrique, p. 40 no. 41). Cf. Romanelli, CAH. xi, p. 668.
1 0

4
Syme, Cagnat, Mommsen, Ritterling, ll.cc; 1 1
Probably a Vettius or a Magulnius: cf. PIR.
Anderson, CAH. x, p. 271; Groag, PW. (iR.) iv, m, 181; Robinson, BMC. Cyrenaica, p. ccxxiv. For
9

825. the Marsian Vettii Scatones, vide Syme, RR. p. 91

5
As Zumpt, l.c. n. 5.
6
As von Domaszewski, Philologus, LXVII (NF. BMC. 42.
1 2

xxi), 1908, pp. 4 f., corrected by Groag, l.c 1 3

Ibid. 43.
138 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
1
and Agrippa (CAESAR T R . P O T . A G R I P P A ) , and S C A T O P R O COS. i n wreath,
and another o f c. 170 grains w i t h Augustus's head (CAESAR T R . P O T . ) and a sella
castrensis ( S C A T O PR.). Robinson suggests that the differences in type between the
a 3

two larger and two smaller denominations may be due to separate governorships o f
c. 27 and c. 18-12 B . C . But there are several obstacles to acceptance o f the earlier date.
I n the first place, the resemblance i n type o f the smaller denominations to the issues o f
A . Pupius Rufus (c. 29-27 B . C . ) (p. 69) is not i n any way remarkable. The types i n
question are a serpent and a ram—it is difficult to think o f any more natural choice for
an Augustan moneyer i n this province. The serpent appears on the smallest denomina-
t i o n : the only piece o f similar size since Actium was that o f Pupius, which was there-
fore an obvious model. The community o f types, then, is not evidence for a close
4
correspondence in date. A serpentwas a national badge, and was considered the regular
device for these small coins whenever they were struck. Moreover, Scato's type is by
no means similar to Pupius's i n execution. Again, w h y should the ram o f Amnion*
6
not be repeated, as Pupius himself was repeating i t from earlier issues? Here, too,
there are signs o f stylistic evolution between Pupius and Scato. Both these types o f
Scato, then, ram and serpent, are perfectly suitable to c. 18-12 B . C . A second objection
to Robinson's division can be derived from the untitled name S C A T O on these smaller
pieces. Under Augustus no one except those o f equestrian rank issued coinage which
totally omitted their title o f office: Scato was clearly not a knight, but the omission on
the smaller pieces is easily comprehensible i f they were part o f a series including the
larger ones specifying the title P R O COS. Indeed, the even gradation o f weights
strongly suggests that the four denominations were contemporary, and part o f the
same system. Palikanus and Capito strike asses o f rather more than 100 grains; 7

Scato's pieces are probably sestertius, dupondius, as and semis (or quadrans),
on a very slightly lower standard. The stylistic divergency between the two larger and
two smaller o f these coins may be explained, not by differences o f date, but by the dual
character o f the provincia, which had already caused double coinage at an earlier period
(p. 35). The small pieces were clearly intended for Cyrenaica, but the larger ones are
o f a general character, and probably did service for both parts o f the province. They
are not dissimilar i n style from the colonial series o f Cnossus (p. 261)—near the pro-
8
consular residency—where they are likely to have been struck.
The slight reduction i n weights suggests that these contemporary issues o f Scato
were a little later than those o f Palikanus and Capito. This conclusion is confirmed
1
BMC 39. 1
Ibid. 40. 8
Sestini's reference to Cyrenaican provenance
3
Ibid. p. ccxxiv. (Fontana, 1, p. 126) must be understood to refer
4
' Vide Robinson, l.c p. ccxxiii. See below, only to the issues of L . Lollius, pace Robinson, l.c.
p. 141, for an explanation of the type. p. ccix. But, even if Cyrenaicanfindsoccurred, they
5
Ibid. p. clxviii. would not contradict the present view since inter-
6
Ibid. pp. liv, 105. circulation is to be expected between two parts of a
7
Robinson, l.c. p. ccxxvii. joint province.
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y ' S E N A T O R I A L * G O V E R N O R S 139
by changes i n execution and fabric, and b y the head o f Agrippa which occurs on the
sestertii. The gold and silver—and, for that matter, other official coinages also—do
1
not portray him before 18 B.C.: this, too, is official currency, and no tenure o f the
2
province by Agrippa had warranted his earlier appearance. Scato's governorship is
therefore most likely to belong to the proconsular year 13-12. The subsequent fate o f
the province w i l l be seen to be intimately bound up with that o f Africa.

4. AFRICA: Hadrumetum, uncertain Byzacenian rnint

M . Acilius Glabrio has already struck an official coin, at an unknown mint, before the
reorganisation o f the aes, i n 25 B.C. (p. 81). There are five other types whose lack o f
ethnic makes i t impossible to consider them purely local.
(1) 3 -STVS T R . P O T . X V I I . I M head o f Augustus to right.—O.C.S.
in wreath; laurel-branches. 7-6 B.C.; sestertius.
(2) 4 CAESAR A V G V S T V S head to right—C. CAESAR A V G V S T . F., L .
CAESAR A V G V S T . F. bare heads o f Caius and Lucius facing one another.
Sestertius.
(3) 5 A F R . F A . M A X . COS. P R O COS. V I I V I R E P V L O head to right o f Africanus
Fabius Maximus, proconsul c. 6-5 B.C. —C. L I V I N . G A L L V S Q. P R O PR.
6

elephant crushing serpent.' As (Pi. I V , 28).

(4) 7 I M P . CAES D I V I F. P. P. head o f Augustus to right, lituus.—L. PASS-
[IENVS] R V F V S I M P . head to right o f L . Passienus Rufus, proconsul and im-
perator c. A . D . 3. 8
Sestertius ( P i . JLV, 26).
(5) 9 I M P . CAESAR D I V I F. A V G V S [ T V S P. P.] head o f Augustus to right—TI.
CAESAR A V G . F. IMP -; • • • head o f Tiberius to right, lituus. Sestertius.
The reverse inscription o f the last piece should be restored I M P [ V . , V I . or V I I . ] , c. A . D .
10
8-14. A coin on which Borghesi professed to decipher the name C [ N ] . P[IS]ONE,
1
BMC. Imp. Aug. n o ff. 5 Hague, etc.; Muller 11, p. 61. 37, Marchese coll.
3
It will be shown elsewhere (p. 428) that sale (Santamaria, 1924) 51.
Agrippa was legatus of the Asiatic provinces from As Renault, Bulletin archiohgique du comiti des
6

18 to 13: but Josephus explicitly limits his com- travaux historiques et scientifiques, 1897, p. 250, cor-
mand to these (AJ. xvi, 86), Creta-Cyrenaica was recting Muller, l.c. (5-4 BX.) and Tissot, Fastes de
not included among the transmarinae provinciae—la province romaine d*Afrique (4-3 B.C.); PIR. I I ,
those * beyond the Ionian Sea' (ibid, xv, 350; cf. 48. 37.
Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 142)—any more than 7 Paris; Muller, Suppl. p. 43. 39a.
Sicily or Africa. Velleius 11, 216. 2; cf. CIL. vm, 16456; PIR.
8

3
Paris; Cohen, Description historique des mon-HI, 15. i n .
naies frappies sous I*empire romain, 1, p. 827—mis- 9 Paris, BM, Hague (each contributing part of
reading, repeated by Newby (p. 31). legend).
4
Hague, Paris; Muller 11, p. 62. 39; BMC. Imp. Cf. Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico italiano, 1,
1 0

p. 119. 1862, p. 174.

140 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
1 2
although cited even by Groag and Stein, is clearly seen b y a Paris specimen to be a
colonial issue o f Hippo, reading H I P P O N E L I B E R A (p. 224).
I t is possible to assign (3) w i t h certainty to Hadnimetum, since a coin bearing the
ethnic o f that city has the same individual style, portrait, titulature and fabric (p. 228),
and is clearly struck by the same mint.3 That the omission o f the ethnic on (3) is not
accidental is shown b y an extremely close stylistic resemblance to (1) and (2), where i t
is equally lacking, and which can hardly be from another mint. (4) and (5) are also
clearly from, the same region, though not necessarily from Hadnimetum itself. The
whole series, on each coin o f which the ethnic is absent, seems to have an official and
commemorative character. I t presents a number o f other unusual features. The
tribunician power w i t h a number on (1) (followed probably b y a numbered imperator-
ship) is exceptional on official Augustan aes from provincial mints (p. 446); Passienus's
cognomen imperatoris is unparalleled at so late a date; the conjoined portraits o f Caius
and Lucius are unique on official aes (but see pp. 144 f.).
Furthermore, these are the only official coins o f Augustus's principate which include
the portraits o f proconsuls. I t should be noted that both the governors who thus
exceptionally allow their heads to be placed on their aes were full-fledged amici
principis—a class already virtually defined, to whose exaltation much publicity was
4

devoted i n the period to which these coins fall. Agrippa and Drusus were dead,
Tiberius was i n eclipse, and steps were taken to encourage loyal helpers.* The synchro-
nisation o f numismatic propaganda to this end i n the great 'senatorial' provinces is
discussed elsewhere (p. 228). The outstanding repute o f Passienus is indicated b y his
now exceptional cognomen imperatoris: he was the first man w i t h this Italian name-
6

7
formation to reach the consulship. Africanus Maximus—like his brother Paullus i n
Asia (p. 387)—was portrayed also on city-coinages i n his province (p. 228): he was a
relation by marriage to Augustus, and the Lex Pompeia seems to have been neglected
8

0
for his early appointment as proconsul.
Africanus's issues reveal another respect i n which Augustus's lack o f support
within his family caused h i m to enhance the dignity o f the senior proconsuls. The
coins bear on the reverse the name o f C. Livineius Gallus quaestor pro'praetore. There
are two reasons for thinking that this tide is exceptional. First, the supposition that
all provincial quaestors—not only quaestors o f double provinces—already bore
this tide from 27 B . C . is wholly unsupported b y evidence from the principate o f
1 0

1
PIR* 11, 59. 287. Cf. Velleius 11, 116. 2 ; I L S . 120; Syme, CAH.
6

1
Cf. Cohen, l.c. 1, p. 185; Boutkowski, DN. x, p. 347. See below, p. 430 n. 2.
p. 225; also Constantine mus. Syme, JRS. X X V I I I , 1938, p. 123 n. 70.
7

3 Cf. Muller 11, p. 61. 37. The British Museum PIR. 11, 48. 37, 38.
8

specimen is of Tunisian provenance. Cf. Renault, Bull. arch, du com. 1897, p. 250.
9

4
von Premerstein, pp. 223 f.; Syme,/c/?. p. 385, Borghesi, (Suvres, 1, pp. 482 ff.; Ditten-
1 0

etc. berger, IG. 111, p. 120; Mommsen, St.R. 11 , p. 246

3

5 Syme, RR. pp. 420 ff. n. 4.

 P R O V I N C I A L ISSUES B Y ' S E N A T O R I A L ' G O V E R N O R S 141
1 2
Augustus. I n the Republic this had not been the case, and such a view is very inap-
propriate to so cautious a dispenser o f imperium and so strong a traditionalist as the
first princeps. Borghesi must admit that many quaestors show no signs o f being pro
praetore.* Secondly, the fact that only one other quaestor places his name on Augustan
issues suggests that coinage cannot any longer be considered the prerogative o f the
quaestors even o f double provinces: indeed, the official i n question, Capito, owed his
mintage to the inaccessibility o f his proconsul for purposes o f civil administration
(p. 137). From these considerations i t must be inferred that the propraetorian imperium
o f Livineius, and his name on official coinage, are due to exceptional circumstances.
Such a probability is strengthened b y the type o f the coin. This is derived from the
4 6
coinage o f Caesar, whose name ( i n Punic5) and whose dignity the elephant repre-
sented: i t was Caesaris armentumJ Its action i n crushing the serpent denotes the con-
8
clusion o f a successful campaign. Africanus's imitation o f the type is peculiarly apt by
reason o f the special relevance o f the serpent to Africa. I t appears throttling the
Turdetanian bull on coinage o f Bogud's supporters at Lascuta;* but i t was particularly
10
the symbol o f A m m o n and thus the national emblem o f Cyrenaica," on whose earlier
coinage under Augustus i t has twice been noted together w i t h the head o f A m m o n and
his ram (pp. 69, 137). N o w A m m o n was the emblem o f Cyrenaica because o f his
w
great shrine to the south o f the province, at Ammonium (Siwa). This was i n the middle
o f the territory o f the Marmaridae, to w h o m therefore the god bore a special relation.
The symbolism o f this coin takes on a new importance when i t is recollected that there
was a recrudescence o f hostilities against this nation near the beginning o f the last
14
decade B . C . , and that war was still raging during the tenure o f Maximus i n Africa.
1 3

I t has been shown that an earlier campaign necessitated the junction o f part o f
Africa w i t h Cyrenaica (p. 136): i t is tempting to suppose that this coin, w i t h a type
so significantly referring to suppression o f the people o f A m m o n b y Caesar, bears

1
The inscriptions Borghesi quotes are much later: 5 Spartian, Vita Aelii, \\ cf. Eckhel, DN. vi,
the list can be checked by reference to PIR. 1, 13. p. 5; Clermont-Ganneau, Recueil d*arche otogie
2 f

78; 11, 34. 1403; PIR. 11, 11. 64, 17. 107, 200. 274; orientate, I , 1888, p. 233.
in, 46. 360, 208. 326; and CIL. 11, 1282, 1371; 111, 6
Artemidorus, Onirocr. 11, 12; cf. Eckhel, l.c.
14387d; v, 864; vm, 2747, 2754; ix, 4194; x, 525, 7
Juvenal XII, 106.
1122, 4864, 6659, 719 , 7 " 8 , 7235-<$> 7*5»> 7*56,
2 8
Suidas, s.v. IT|U£TOC OKU0IK<5C; cf. Babelon, Rn.
7344, 8291; xii, 3164, 3169, 3171^, 3173; xiv, 1902, p. 7.
4464-6; Klein, Die romischen Verwaltungsbeamten, 9 Heiss, p. 358; Delgado 1, p. clxvii; cf. 11,
p. 287. 3. pp. 168 f.; and below, p. 473.
* Mommsen, l.c. p. 651; Borghesi, Lc. 11, p. 405.
1 0
Robinson, BMC. Cyrenaica, p. ccxxiii; cf.
Exceptions had only been due to double provinces Cook, Zeus, 1, pp. 358 ff. (from Hesychius), pace
and to war-emergencies; cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 86. Muller 1, p. 163; Thrige, Res Cyrenensium, pp. 289 f.
3
L.c. 1, p. 485—101 amore di brevitd is a poor
1 1
Synesius iv, 167; cf. Riess, PW. 1, 1856.
reason for failure to allude in any way to the vital
1 2
Cf. Pietschmann, PW. 1, 1858.
part of a tide.
1 3
Cf. Romanelli, CAH. xi, p. 669; cf. p. 667 n. 1,
* BMCR. 11, p. 391. 1 4
Ibid. p. 669.
142 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C-A.D. 14
witness to a temporary fusion o f the provinces, such as Romanelli, for other reasons,
1
believes to have occurred.
This hypothesis is confirmed b y further considerations. I t explains the special rank
and dignity o f Livineius, who was probably, like Capito, left by his proconsul i n
charge o f the civil administration o f Cyrenaica (and no doubt Crete also). I t is note-
2
worthy that an inscription from Berenice describes M . Tittius Sex. f.,3 the Resident i n
Cyrenaica i n c. 9-8 B . C . , as TrapcxyevnMs els T T J V STrapxetccv erri SrjuocHcov irpcxyucjCTCov.
4

This descriptive detour is quite unsuitable to a proconsul, although the inscription

speaks o f Tittius's eOxpncrros Trpocrraaia; but i t is peculiarly applicable to the position
o f quaestor pro praetore which, i t is here argued, Livineius held i n c. 6-5 B . C . , as 'sub
governor' o f Crete and Cyrenaica under the imperium maius o f the proconsul o f Africa.
I n the same way, the first ' E d i c t ' o f Cyrene* withholds—otherwise inexplicably—the
proconsular title from the Resident o f c. 7-6* B . C . , P. Sextius Scaeva: he is evidently to
be classed w i t h Tittius and Capito. These 'Edicts' provide for possible administrative
6
changes b y referring to future Residents only i n the most indefinite terms. The i n -
scription o f Tittius indicates that the transference to the proconsul o f Africa should be
placed before c. 9 B . C . : i t might have occurred a year or two earlier, but not more,
since Scato (c. 13-12) was not the last o f the proconsuls o f Crete and Cyrenaica before
the transfer, a successor called Q. Lucanius Proculus possessing the same tide.?
8
Lucanius's fortification o f Cyrene implies that hostilities were already threatening.
The year 9 B . C . , i t may be noted, is for two reasons a particularly appropriate one for
official aggrandisement o f the governors o f Africa. Augustus had extended the
imperium maius i n his own province i n that year, so that it was tactful to allow the same
power to the senior proconsul; and the death o f Drusus i n the same year was one o f
the chief causes contributing to the development o f the amici principis, who included
0
a succession o f these proconsuls (p. 229). A fragmentary passage o f D i o relating to
c. 1 B . C . suggests that there was still no proconsul i n Cyrenaica at that date, when the
decision was taken to transfer its Eastern half to the more accessible governor o f
10 11
Egypt and so t o ' imperial' rule. A Cyrenean inscription o f A . D . 2 celebrates the con-
clusion o f hostilities i n that region, but the coin o f Passienus i n A . D . 3 shows that the
African command—whether still inclusive o f Crete and Western Cyrenaica or not—
could not say the same: i t was reserved for Cossus Lentulus i n 6 " to bring peace for a
1
CAH. X I , p. 659. 2
IGRR. I , 1024. 7 Documenti antichi delV Africa italiana, n;
3 Not = Titius, Munzer, PW. vi, 1573 correcting Cirenaica, fasc. 1, p. 101 Annie ipigraphique,
Cagnat, IGRR. l.c. 1934, no. 256; correcting Cagnat's restoration,
4
Cagnat, \.c.,pace Munzer, he; cf. Cary, CAH. IGRR. 1, 1032.
ix, p. 292. 8
Cf. Romanelli, l.c. p. 667 n. 1. L V , iod. 1.
0 x

5 Vide JRS. 1927, p. 34; SEG. ix, 1938, p. 118. 1 0

Cf. Syme, RR. p. 357. Groag, PW. (iR.\ iv,
6
E.g. Ed. 1, 1. 14, ol -rf)v KpnTiirf)v KOCI Kupn- 827 reserves his judgment on this point.
vaiK^v fcTiapxifacv KCC0£€°VT£S; 1. 37, 6aoi Kpi*rrr|S 1 1
Documenti antichi ecc, Cirenaica, fasc. I I , no. 67:
KCCI Kupi^viisCTTpocTTiy^CTOuaiv;iv, 1. 65 &s av T ^ V cf. Romanelli, l.c. p. 668.
iiTctpxi'iav 8taKorr£xn. " Cf. Syme, CAH. x, p. 347.
 P R O V I N C I A L I S S U E S B Y ' S E N A T O R I A L * G O V E R N O R S 143
decade, and i t is very probable that his appointment brought another administrative
change—a temporary conversion o f Africa (and so perhaps o f the other regions also)
1
to an 'imperial' province. The history o f these territories bears witness to the extreme
elasticity o f Augustus's provincial system.*

5. CYPRUS: Paphos, Salamis(?)

3 4
The return o f this island to the senate i n 22 B . C . is closely followed by a bronze series
o f A . P L A V T I V S P R O COS.5 Like the issues o f proconsuls i n 29 B . C . (p. 385),
his coinage—which is as isolated as theirs—probably commemorates the reinaugura-
tion o f proconsular government. The fact that his diminutive semisses show, w i t h
6
slightly varying styles, the figure o f Zeus o f Salamis and the temple o f Aphrodite o f
8
Paphos7 may possibly indicate the existence o f t w o mints; but i f this was so, they
were combined under Tiberius, i n whose principate both types appear on a single
0
coin.
The more pretentious issues o f official A V G V S T . and SC types (pp. 106, 99) are
very likely to have commemorated the bestowal on Paphos o f the title ZepcccnYi
in c. 15 B . C . O f exactly similar style and o f Cypriot provenance" are a number o f
1 0

asses12 which stress the honours to Caius Caesar: his bare head appears, inscribed
C. CAESAR A V G . F. P R I N C . I V V E N T . 3 (from 5 B . C . ) or C. CAESAR A V G . F.
X

14
P O N T . C O S . (from A . D . I ) , w i t h the laureate portrait o f Augustus as A V G V S T .
T R I B . P O T . P O N T . M A X . O n a third issue the princeps is CAESAR A V G . P A T .
PATR. * Cyprus also has at this period a currency o f small uninscribed semisses, pre-
1

16
sumably official, w i t h types o f Capricorn and star, and scorpion and star.
A n issue o f some historical importance can be reconstructed from its two extant
1
examples. ? O n the reverse are t w o figures seated facing (Pi. I V , 25). The obverse shows
a head o f Augustus to right (Pi. I V , 24), which on one specimen is practically identical,
in features, truncation, hair arrangement, and execution, w i t h the portraits o f Cypriot
1
Argued plausibly by Cantarelli, Studi romani, Hill, NC. 1924, p. 14. Their occasional dis-
1 1

11, 1914, p. 54. coyery elsewhere (e.g. at Risstissen; Schenk von

2
Emphasised by Sutherland, RIS. p. 208. Stauffenberg coll., cf. Nesde, Funde, p. 82) is prmci-
3 Dio LIV, 4; cf. Jones, CERP. p. 488 n. 8; pally due to their official character.
Cardinali, Augustus, p. 161. " Av. c. 139*5 grains.
4
Spectrograms 26, 27. Zinc in very small Hill, L c no. 25.
1 3

quantities. Ibid. no. 26, Hess sale (1933) 322.

1 4

5 Hill, BMC. Cyprus, p. cxx. Ibid. no. 27; variants at Vienna and in Dupriez
1 5

6
Ibid. p. 73. 4 (67 grains) (pi. XIV<4). sale (1934) 85, with head to left; the latter coin is
7
Ibid. 2 (av. 67 grains) (pi. X I V , 2). wrongly stated in its catalogue to have a head of
8
Spectrographs tests (Spectrograms 26, 27) are Lucius.
inconclusive on this point. Hamburger sale (1925) 495; cf. Hill, NC.
1 6

9 Ibid. 10. 1917, p. 24; found in Cyprus (BM label) (av. c

1 0
Halgan, Essai sur Vadministration des provinces 48 grains).
sinatoriales, p. 175. 1 7
BM, Berlin (both * uncertain').
144 COINAGE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 2 7 B . C . - A . D . 14

coins w i t h A V G VST. and SC (Pi: I I I , 17; I V , 8); i t also resembles the series o f
Augustus and Caius Caesar from the same island. Further, the obverse legend is
I M P . CAESAR D I V I F . A V G V ,* a form o f which the only known appearance on
official issues i n the East (to which these coins must, for stylistic reasons, be attributed)
is at Cyprus (p. 80). The fabric o f these pieces indicates a later date than the issue o f
A . Plautius pro cos. (on which this form o f titulature occurs); they must be not far
from contemporary w i t h the series o f Augustus and Caius Caesar. Imhoof-Blumer*
not only wrongly describes the figures on the reverse as standing, thus inviting an
3
entirely false analogy w i t h much later coins o f Selinus, but reads (upside down) the
Greek ethnic ANEMOYPIE60N, o f Cilicia, whereas the inscription is actually i n Latin:
• -LVCAV QAMQVIN4[TI]5
Both figures wear veils which are very like those w o r n by the Caesars Caius and
Lucius, as priests, on the reverse o f the famous Lugdunese aurei and denarii? moreover,
on one o f the t w o specimens one figure is distinctly larger than the other, as on a
number o f the coins o f Lugdunum.? O n those the inscription is C. L . CAESARES
A V G V S T I F. COS. D E S I G . P R I N C . I V V E N T . ; on colonial aes pieces o f Tarraco
and Traducta the Caesars are described as C. L . CAES. A V G . F. and C. CAESAR
L . CAESAR A V G . F. (pp. 219, 221). These analogies necessitate the restoration o f
the first half o f the present legend as [ C ] . L V . C(aesares) A V [ G . F., P R I N C . I V V .
or COS. D E S I G . ] . The praenomen o f Lucius is found likewise irregularly abbreviated
as L V C . at Traducta (p. 221). Caius and Lucius are not here seated upon a bisellium,
like Augustus and Agrippa on a Roman denarius which perhaps inspired the type, 8

but on an oriental high-backed throne w i t h footstools (or pedestal), probably as culms-

0
statues. Greek cities are known to have worshipped the grandsons o f Augustus; i t is
10
possible that they were enshrined among the Lares at the c o l o n y o f Acerrae during their
1
lifetime," and they possessed a temple at the Roman or Latin colony o f Nemausus. *
But there were no colonies or municipia i n Cyprus, so these cannot be local pieces.
By analogy w i t h other Cypriot issues Q. A M . Q V I N T I . should be a proconsul
Quintianus, Quintillus, or Quintilianus, who might belong to one o f several gentes. 13

He is the responsible authority for this issue, since, like the others o f the island, i t must
be official. I t may, therefore, provide a unique piece o f evidence for the worship o f
Caius and Lucius i n the provincial cult o f a KOIVOV, such as was here established at
Paphos, henceforward called Sebaste, i n 15 B.C. The priestly veils indicate a date not
14

1
BM. 9 E.g. IGRR. iv, 67 (Mytilene); iv, 468 (Per-
2
Ant. GM. p. 267. gamum), etc
3 Id. MG. p. 364. 48 (Philip); GM. p. 714. 581 1 0
Liber Coloniarum (Feldm., p. 229).
(Domna). 11
Cf. ILS. 137. " CIL. XII, 3156.
13
4
Berlin. 5 BM. E.g. Ammia, Ampeia, Ampudia, Ampelia,
6
BMC. Imp. p. cxvi; Aug. 513 ff. Amullia, Amminia, etc.
7 E.g. ibid. 534, 539-
14
Dio LIV, 23; cf.^Spyridaki, Kinrpioxal ZirovSal,
8
BMC. Imp. p. cvii; Aug. 115. 11, 1938, p. 37. Cf. above, p. 140.
 P R O V I N C I A L ISSUES B Y ' S E N A T O R I A L ' G O V E R N O R S 145
1
before 2 B.C. for these coins, but i t cannot be ascertained whether the issue was made
after the Caesars' deaths. I t is possible that the [ C . L . ] CAES. G E M I N I on a colonial
coin o f Tarraco (p. 219) provides a parallel, and that they were worshipped as the t w i n
Dioscuri* by the KOIVOV Kvnpfcov as by the Commune which met at that town.3

6. ASIA: Ionian mint

This province was one o f the principal centres o f the large official mintages whose
range and content have been discussed (pp. 102 ff.): they are supplemented b y an issue
o f very rare sestertii* and dupondii(?y which resemble some o f them i n manner:
I M P . A V G V S T . T R . P O T . Head o f Augustus to right.
O B C I V I S S E R V A T O S . Oak-wreath between two laurel-branches ( P i . V , 11).
6
The type is that o f Roman sestertii: the reverse style recalls the C A issues attributed
7
to Ephesus (p. 104). W i t h these the portrait on one specimen shows further kinship;
8 0
on another i t imitates a 'cistophoric' tetradrachm. The head on the third extant
10
example is perhaps tooled and therefore unreliable. Style and fabric indicate an
Ionian mint. The occasion for so rare and special an issue cannot now be identified;
i t may conjecturally be attributed to the period o f Agrippa's rule i n c. 18-13 B.C.

7. B I T H Y N I A : Apamea

A proconsul o f Bithynia-Pontus" also strikes one Latin c o i n : "

I M P . CAESAR A V G V S T V S , P O N T I F . M A X . T R . P. busts to left, jugate, o f
Augustus and Livia,
M . G R A N I V S M A R C E L L V S P R O COS.*3 Livia seated to right (PL I V , 33,. 34).
14 1
Bosch shows that, o f the t w o dates A . D . 13-14 and 14-15 suggested b y Muret, * only
the latter is probable; this issue was therefore made i n the last few months o f Augustus's
life—or even just after his death, but before the news arrived. But there is no strength
in the argument o f Bosch that, since official coins o f Bithynia have Greek inscriptions,
this must be colonial: the Greek issues which he cites are silver o f Hadrianic date, and
provide no parallel for the present coinage, which cannot be other than official.
16
Nevertheless, style appears to warrant attribution to Apamea, i n which Bosch, for

1
Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 154. 1 0
Ibid. 737.
* Cf. Hill, p. 48. 1 1
T a c Arm. 1.74, pace Grose, McLean coll 3028.
3
Ibid. p. 47; cf. Quintilian vi, 3. 77. " Rec. Apamea 38, Cambridge (McLean I.C.).
4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 737 f..
x
3 The Granii were business men of Puteolan
5
Herpin, Rn. 1857, pp. 205 f.: not seen. origin (Syme, RR. p. 90 n. 7).
6
BMC. Imp. p. cxix.
1 4
KM. p. 79.
7
BMC. Imp. Aug. 738. '5 BCH. v, 1881, p. 120.
9 BMC. Imp. Aug. 700.
1 6
8
New York. Cf. coins of Vespasian (Muret, l.c).
146 C O I N A G E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C.-A.D. 14
1
less cogent reasons, concurs. The colonial mint of this city must, therefore, have been
commandeered for an official issue (p. 314). The seated figure o f Livia, so common a
type under Tiberius, is already found, as Ceres, on the latest aurei and denarii o f
2

Augustus,* and Juno-Livia appears on a Latin inscription o f A . D . 3. O n the present4

piece her double role shows her importance, while not yet Augusta, i n the honours o f
the Gens Augusta. I t is natural for this coinage, like others o f the same category, t o be
the product o f the auctoritas principis; owing to its late date, however, i t may, unlike
them, resemble the Syrian issue o f Silanus (p. 127) i n being derived from the" executive
o f the consilium rather than from a senatus consultumJ
Section C described the framework o f the numismatic plan, and the last three
sections have illustrated the methods b y which the princeps filled i n the gaps. The
structure was complex and colossal; but initiative i n details was left to those com-
munities for which i t was devised. The following t w o Parts w i l l show their contribu-
tion to the monetary system.
1
His argument that Sinope kommt hierfur nichtbuted to Narboj?]) (pi. I V , 27) has a prow with
in Betracht, weil im Osten der Proving Proconsul- superstructure and 1 (mark of value), and on the
namen auf den Miin^en me genannt werden is false, obverse two heads which are imitated, in a style
since (1) coins struck at Amisus and Sinope, un- which is not Gallic,fromthe later issues of Nemau-
known to him, bear the name of a governor (see sus with P.P. (cf. above, p. 75). This coin corre-
pp. 11 f.); (2) even if they did not, this coin is in any sponds exacdy with the description by Signor
case exceptional and Sinope was as much a part of Baranowsky of one which was found at Sant'
the province as Apamea. Moreover, Eastern official Antioco, an island off South Sardinia, near Cagliari,
aes, like that of P. Sulpicius Rufus, was struck in and was at one time in his possession; he did not
towns of peregrine right. But his attribution to know of the Milan specimen. It seems that this is an
Apamea is correct. isolated provincial issue from the Sardinian capital
* Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxvii. at Caralis; it has been shown, however, that the
3 BMC. Imp. Aug. 544 ff. issue of Nemausus which it copies is not Augustan,
4
ILS. 1, 120, etc, etc as is generally held.
5 A bronze coin at Milan (Cat. p. 23. 232, attri-
 147

Part II
T H E ROMAN C I T I E S

INTRODUCTION
1
is not necessary to emphasise the importance o f the colonies and municipia as

I
T

centres o f Italian influence and institutions, and as conscious or unconscious*

agents o f the Romanisation o f an Empire crii et supportipar la bourgeoisie cita
But, i n view o f the fragmentary treatment hitherto accorded i t , i t may be well to
point out that the coinage o f these cities is so numerous and varied as to provide an
entirely unrivalled corpus o f information: i t can even be called the principal category o f
evidence for this vital topic. The significance o f the coinage is particularly great i n the
present period, during which most o f the Roman cities were founded or refounded. I t
gives a detailed picture o f the transition from Republic to principate, from self-govern-
ment to bureaucracy, and provides remarkable contributions to the central theme o f
this book, the beginning and development o f rule b y auctoritasprincipis. Furthermore
it provides ample documentation for prosopographical study o f the local magistrates
at this date, and for the dispersion o f Italians throughout the Empire.
I t is therefore surprising to find that, o f the 78 Roman cities (32 municipia and 46
colonies) which coined i n this period, only about 31 series (those o f 17 municipia and
4

14 colonies) have ever received a reasonably complete local attribution. I n particular,

the currencies o f 10 municipia and 13 colonies have not been recognised at all, and some
35 principal varieties have not been published. These figures are necessarily based on
reattfibutions i n the following pages, although the writer is well aware that his o w n
conclusions may be upset b y greater knowledge or b y new material. I t is, however, at
least possible to suggest that a dominant theme has escaped notice: the mintages are
nearly all commemorative, a few celebrating the jubilee o f their city, but the great
majority its establishment or re-establishment. I t is clear, therefore, that the coins
1
These will here be considered to include the administrative details, and no real distinction can be
oppida civium Romanorum (praefecturae,fora,etc), drawn now, or was then. Cf. below, p. 171, on Gades.
which were in law municipia (Sh^erwin-White, p. 87 * Largely the latter according to Jones, GC. p. 70
n. 1) but still presented variations from that class at etc.
the date of Pliny's source (cf. Kornemann, PW. 3 Rostovtzeff, Milanges Pirenne, p. 425.
xvi, 597; Taberner, QAS. xvm, 1939, p. 17), ex- 4
For the purpose of this calculation municipia
cept in Italy and Baetica (Sherwin-White, pp. 141, Simitthu and Panormus are considered different
171). However, the divergencies were principally in from the later colonies at the same cities.
148 INTRODUCTION
1
w i l l provide substantial assistance to the chronology o f city-foundation. I t w i l l be
argued that the dates currendy assigned to these are i n many cases incorrect, and that,
i n particular, the main lines o f the policies o f Caesar and Augustus have been inade-
quately distinguished. This and other historical subjects are the concern o f the third
Chapter; the first two w i l l attempt to establish the identities o f the municipal and
colonial mints, and the occasions o f their issues.
1
See Appendices 4 and 5.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 149

Chapter!
T H E ROMAN MUNICIPIA
1. S A R D I N I A : Caralis, Uselis

T
1
H E R E is a bronze coin o f unusual character whose Sardinian provenance has
frequendy been demonstrated,* but equally often ignored i n favour o f Muller's
3
wrong attribution to Carthage: - x

A R I S T O M V T V M B A L R I C O C E S V F . ; t w o male busts, jugate, to right, one

4
w i t h toga—KAR. V E N E R I S tetrastyle temple (PL V , 14).
The suffetes (shophetim) are inconsistent w i t h the status o f Carthage as a colony but
much more i n accordance w i t h the original character o f municipia as converted towns
(p. 325). Caralis, i n whose neighbourhood these coins are found, became a Roman
municipium under either Augustus or Julius,5 w h o visited Sardinia after Thapsus. 6

Already before the death o f Augustus7 quattuorviri are found: the appearance here o f
8
suffetes (as earlier at Tharros) probably represents a transitional stage—already under
0
the Roman right, as the Latin inscription suggests and the togate bust o f one o f the
suffetes proves. The survival o f these magistrates confirms the view that enfranchise-
ment did not cause a sudden break i n tradition. The curious omission o f their gentili-
10

cia (which were perhaps i n both cases 'Julius') is characteristic o f this period when the
11
theory o f dual citizenship formulated b y Cicero—imam naturae alteram civitatis —h
not yet taken r o o t . " The portraits are quite unlike those o f Octavian and Agrippa, to
13
whom they have been attributed: i t seems that they must join the select and unknown
gallery o f municipal officials thus honoured (p. 290). I n accordance w i t h this view is
14
the known existence i n earlier times o f pairs o f epdnymous suffetes. The third name
1
Spectrogram 23. Strong tin and lead alloy. The 5 Kornemann, PW. xvi, 595; cf. ILS. 5350;
tin may have been importedfromTuscany, but both Pliny, NH. 111, 85; Kubitschek, Imp. p. 126;
copper and lead were still worked locally (Davies, Hulsen, PW. in, 1568; Pais, Storia delta Sardegna
Roman Mines in Europe, pp. 69-72). e delta Corsica, p. 354.
* Spano, Scoperte archeologiche neW isola, 1865; Gsell vm, p. 154.
6

ibid. 1870; cf. Bornemann, Blatter fur Munifreunde, 7 Bouchier, Sardinia in Ancient Times, p. 90.
1900, pp. 156 f.; Albizzati, Annali delta Facolta di Comptes rendus de VAcadimie des inscriptions,
8

Lettere delta R. Univ. di Cagliari, I , 1928, p. 7; 1901, p. 579. 9 Albizzati, l.c.

Poinssot, Bulletin de la Sociiti nationale des anti- Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 139, following Momra-
1 0

quaires de France, 1928, p. 266; Ricci, Historia, iv, sen, St.R HI, pp. 812 f.; pace Rudolph, Stadt und
1930, p. 366; Milan Cat. p. 27. 285 n. Stoat im romischen Italien, pp. 225 f.
3 11, p. 149.319-320; cf. Cimino, Libya, ill, 1927, De Legibus, 11, 2. 5.
1 1

p. 209; Ehrenberg, PW. (2/?.), iv (1932), 651. Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 133, 189.
1 2

4
BM, Cambridge (McLean, 9999), Castoldi coll., E.g. Grose, McLean, 9999.
1 3

own coll. Repertoire d'epigraphie simitique, 1, 17. 183.

1 4
150 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
1
found here might be that of a third member o f the college o f suffetes (who i n Sardinia,
2
as i n Sicily, occasionally exceeded t w o i n number), but, i n view o f the two portraits,
is more likely to be a patronymic o f the second magistrate, whose name w i l l then be
Mutumbal Ricoce f. (ben Ricoce).3 His colleague was perhaps a Greek.
The native characteristics o f this issue are symbolic o f the new period i n which
Latin culture was not an essential prerequisite o f civitasS Moreover, they suggest a
contrast between municipia and colonies (p. 324). The coinage also provides an i n -
troduction to another topic o f paramount importance. Its early date, and entirely
isolated character, suggest strongly that the only suitable occasion for issue could
have been the constitutio o f the municipium: portraits o f local magistrates at Roman
cities—and perhaps at some classes of peregrine city-^are entirely restricted to founda-
tion-coinages, on which they occur at /wttm«/7za Saguntum and ZamaRegia (pp. 163,183).
Moreover, isolated colonial and municipal issues are almost invariably inauguratory
(p. 290), and i t is a remarkable fact that every single municipal mint i n the provinces
which is active at any time during our period issues a coinage o f this type. The t w o
suffetes, then, were the first magistrates o f the new municipium, i n whose establishment
they may have taken a hand as founder and adsignator—like similar pairs o f officials at
colonia Paestum (p. 286)—or, since i t is more i n accordance w i t h regular practice
outside Italy for the founder to have been a governor, as a pair o f adsignatores.
Whoever the founder was, Caralis is likely to have been an Octavianic foundation,
since the only remaining Roman city i n Sardinia is o f that date also.
This is represented b y the principal coinage o f the island, on which much time and
labour have been expended, but i n vain, since a vital part o f the legends has remained
undiscovered. The inscriptions appear to be M . A T I V S B A L B V S PR., and S A R D .
P A T E R . O n the one side is a head to left o f Alius Balbus—not that o f any triumvir
or princeps—and on the other a helmed head o f Sardus pater to right, spear at shoulder
(PL V I , 4). These pieces are found i n large quantities i n the south-west o f Sardinia,*
6 7 8
where Sardopator was worshipped. E. Babelon, Albizzati, and Pietrangeli* assign
10
the issue to an imagined propraetorship o f Atius, w h o was praetor before 59, and
1 1
must have died soon after." Klebs * rightly agrees w i t h Cavedoni * that such a coin, and
1
Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum, I , 175; cf. 6
Philipp, PW. [2R.], 1,2496; cf. Ptolemy in, 3.2;
Mommsen, RGDA. v, 645. 2. Geogr. Ravenn. p. 411; Pausanias x, 17. 1.
%
Corpus inscriptionum semiticarum, I , 135; cf. Ardthuse, 1, 1923, p. 10 n. 4.
7

Ehrenberg, PW. (2ft), iv, 650. 8

Annali delta Facoltd di Lettere delta R. Univ.
3 For the name cf. Mathanbaal (Levy, Phomiisches di Cagliari, I .
Worterbuch, p. 32); •••tumbal (Africa italiana, vi, 9 Civiltd Romana, VII, 1938, p. 10.
1935, p. 28), Mutum (CIL. vm, 8716), Musthumbal 1 0
C i c / / / Phil 15 ff.; id. Att. 11, 12. 1; cf.
(ibid. 4922). Probably he was a ' C . Julius'. Klein, Die romischen Verwaltungsbeamten, 1, I I . Abu
* Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 168. p. 240. 54.
5 Bouchier, Sardinia in Ancient Times, p. 165; " Cf. Dio XLV, 1. 1, etc.
cf. Spano, Bulkttino archeologico sardo, 1,1855, p. 9; " PW. xi, 2253.
and Castoldi coll. X
3 Bulkttino archeologico sardo, ill, 1857, p. 90.
 THE R O M A N MUNICIPIA I 5 I

1
such a portrait, would be anomalous as early as c. 59, or, indeed, before 44; nor does
AlbizzatiV citation o f T . Quinctius Flamininus—who appears on an isolated Greek
issue (p. 241)—in any way dispose o f this objection. O n the other hand, Eckhel's3
4
attribution to the actual principate o f Augustus, the kinsman o f the A t i i , is invalidated
by the early style and lettering;* moreover, i t is known that i n his final statioprincipis
6
he was not flattered by his Arician origin. There remains the second triumvirate. I n
this period portraits o f the living and dead were not rare (p. 379). Moreover, i n the
first years after Octavian's occupation o f Sardinia i n 38,? i t was very natural, not only
for a city to be municipalised, but for its inhabitants to stress any connection w i t h the
new ruler's family that they could claim. New light is thrown on the nature o f this
8
connection b y t w o unusually clear specimens (e.g. PL V I , 4), on both o f which the
reading is clearly M . A T I V S BALBVS P.R.; on a third example* is P-R., like the
C - G - I - L on a coin o f colonia Lampsacus (p. 246). P(raetor) R(omanus) would be
unparalleled, P(ppulus, -o) R(pmanus, -o) is inapplicable, and there is no suitable town
whose name begins w i t h R. There is nothing left but R(es publico), which, for purposes
10
of epigraphic abbreviation, is sometimes considered as one w o r d , and which is
commonly employed b y Roman cities." Patronus Reipublicae is a frequent phrase i n
inscriptions," and P(atronus), * sometimes C(oloniae) * and M(unicipii)^
x 1
is a regular
abbreviation. Such a patrocimum is more suitable to the A t i i than a local praefectura or
praetorship—to which, moreover, no application o f the letter R is discoverable.
The appearance o f a Roman's head and name, w i t h a tide o f this character, would
be unparalleled at a peregrine community. By the Lex Genetivae luliae (p. 34), the
deductor and adsignator o f a colony are assigned its patrocinium. The coinage o f16

municipium Gades (p. 171) w i l l be seen to confirm the tiatural conclusion that the
constitutors o f municipia, who supervised the installation o f the new constitution until
the first magistrates were ready, ? became theirpatroni in the same way. Very probably,
1 18

x
But his refusal to accept PR. as an abbreviation E.g. CIL. x, 483, 524, 3723, 4737, 4750,
1 4

of pro praetore is unjustifiable (cf. above, p. 61). 4860.

2
L.c. 3 DN. v, 145. 5 E.g. CIL. x, 5654,5919.
F

4
Suet. Aug. 4. 5 Albizzati, l.c 1 6
Cf. Sebastian, De patronis etc., Diss. Halle,
6
Suet. l.c; cf. Syme, RR. p. 127; Heinze, Vom 1884, p. 45; von Premerstein, p. 19; Adcock, CAH.
Geist des Romertums, p. 171. ix, p. 709 n. 4, Kornemann, PW. xvi, 626, point
7
Cf. Ganter, p. 26. out that this is a tralatician section later superseded
8
Both at Rome—from de Sanctis (photograph by Ch. 130. But that chapter, which restricts the
enlarged, Catalogo della Mostra Augustea della patrocimum, in the case of senators and their sons,
Romamta, p. 98. 19, and by Pietrangelt, l.c), and to private persons in Italy without the imperium,
Gnecchi collections. cannot be as early as this period. Cf. also Syme,
9 Castoldi coll. RR. p. 405 n. 4.
1 0
E.g. CIL. xn, 5572a, n, 353. 1 7
Such officials had only been exceptionally ap-
" E.g. CIL. x, p. 2. pointed under the Republic (cf. Sherwin-White,
1 2
E.g. CIL. v, 3342, 6691, xrv, 2806; cf. vm, p. 135) but were now regular: cf. below, p. 160.
1548. 1 8
Cf. Sebastian, l.c pp. 16 ff. for patroni of
1 3
E.g. CIL. in, 4537a, 5838, v, 135. municipia.
152 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
therefore, this isolated issue served to commemorate its city's founder, like the coinage
o f Caralis, which also exceptionally honoured non-imperial personages w i t h portraiture.
Single portraits o f founders occur i n Sardinia at colonia T u n i s Libisonis (p. 205),
and elsewhere at the colonies o f Apamea and Lystra (pp. 238, 255). The founder o f
Turris Libisonis is not Atius Balbus but another; nor does the inauguratory coinage
o f Caralis permit collocation w i t h the present pieces. There remains, i n Sardinia, only
Uselis. Pliny does not mention this city, but an inscription describes i t as colonia
Julia Augusta. This is inconsistent w i t h Kornemann's inference* that the municipium,
1

whose earlier existence he realises this inscription to imply, was not founded until
after the compilation o f the list used by Pliny. The title Julia indicates that this founda-
tion took place before 27 B.C.: and i t w i l l be shown that Pliny's list frequently omits to
mention foundations which occurred before that date (p. 226). Uselis, as a municipium
Julium, is entirely appropriate for the attribution o f these coins—especially since i t is
o f precisely the same latitude as Sulci, where they are most often found.3 Pater, the
appellation o f Sardus, is especially connected w i t h foundations (p. 319), and i t is clear
that he and Atius are compared, as first and second founder—like Romulus and Octavian
at Rome (p. 424).
This unknown M . Atius Balbus is almost certainly a son o f the praetor o f 59, and so
a brother o f Atia and uncle o f Octavian. This conclusion is confirmed b y the pre-
ponderance o f the princeps kinsmen in the select gallery o f local coin-portraits (p. 229).
9

The fact that the A t i i were ignored i n the post-Actian period suggests that M . Balbus
jun. was founder and patron o f Uselis very soon after the reconquest o f Sardinia i n 38.
By the analogy o f other municipal constitutors o f the period 43-29 (p. 292), he is
almost certain to have been the provincial governor. The compliment to Octavian
is perhaps responsible for the popularity o f this coinage, o f which many barbarous
4
specimens are k n o w n .
A later stage i n the history o f the same municipium is demonstrated b y an unpublished
and apparently unique coin (Pi. V I , 5).* O n the reverse, w i t h the legend M . V E H I L .
6
TVS • • • T V R P I L . PRIS. I I V . Q.7 round D . D . , is a plough, o f a curious kind
found also on coins o f colonia Turris Libisonis (p. 205). The obscure gens Vehilia
8
provided a praetor to Caesar and a praetorian proconsul o f Cyprus to Augustus:9 its
only other discoverable appearance within the radius o f a century is on an inscription—
1
ILS. 6107. 2
PW. xvi, 595. XLVII, 1912, p. 387; Syme, RR. p. 91 n. 3; id.
3
Bouchier, l.c p. 166. Papers of the British School at Rome, xrv (NS. 1),
4
E.g. Gotha, Castoldi coll., own coll. 1938, p. 17.
5
Berlin. It lies among the coins of colonia 9 BCH. L I , 1927, p. 143:1 owe to R. Syme the
Buthrotum, from which, however, it exhibits con- certain emendation of the reading MVPHILIO
siderable differences of style. to M. V E H I L I O . The existence of this governor
6
For the Etruscan gens Turpilia, vide Schulze, proves that the Caesarian praetor is not the only
Abh. Gottingen, NF. v, 5, 1904, p. 246. senator from this family, as Ribbeck, Senatores
7 See below, pp. 154, 169 n. 3, 276. Romani, p. 24. 96. The present duovir (Tuscus?) is
8
Cic. / / / Phil. pp. 24 ff.; cf. Sternkopf, Hermes, almost certainly the freedman of one or the other.
 THE R O M A N MUNICIPIA I 5 3

1
likewise, b y a coincidence which is unlikely to be accidental, from Turris Libisonis.
These two suggestions^ o f Sardinian origin are shown i n their true light b y investiga-
tion o f the unusual obverse legend, which is couched i n the Possessive Genitive,* and
accompanies a late head o f Augustus to left. I t is decipherable as: I M P . CAESARIS
A . T R . P. M V P I V S . Given the two Sardinian analogies and our conclusion that
Uselis was a Julian municipium, there can be little doubt that the correct interpretation
is MV(nicipium) P(ium) l(ulium) VS(elis). The epithet P(ium) which occurs also else-
y

3 4
where, is particularly appropriate to a Julian foundation undertaken b y Octavian.
The type o f a plough is naturally as applicable to land allotments, such as might
accompany all kinds o f grants o f civitasj as to colonial foundations: i t appears at
6
Obulco, and even on the inauguratory issue o f the peregrine Caesarea at Tralles
(p. 383). The foundation o f municipium Emporiae b y Caesar is, as w i l l be shown, a
certain example o f a constitutio which was accompanied by allotments to veterans
(p. 155), and similar settlements attended the foundation o f municipia established b y
8
Vespasian? and probably b y Tiberius. This weakening o f the practical distinction
between coloniae and municipia is characteristic o f the period (p. 324).
This is one o f the few isolated issues i n the colonial and municipal series which can-
not be considered to celebrate a foundation. Uselis is still the municipium Iulium
founded by Atius Balbus; the deductio must have been left to Tiberius or a successor,
since coloniae Augustae are often post-Augustan (p. 198), and the portrait on this coin
is from the very latest Augustan models. However, the raison d'itre o f so exceptional
an issue is manifestly commemorative: and an occasion is identifiable w i t h something
like certainty. Practically the only other Roman city-issues o f Augustus's last years
(outside Spain) are equally isolated ones o f Carthage, Cirta (?) and Lystra: and each o f
these commemorates the half-centenary o f its city (pp. 231,232,250). Exactly the same
phenomenon occurs at civitas libera Leptis Minor (p. 338). The date here ascribed to
M . Atius Balbus's foundation (38 B.C.) makes the same conclusion particularly applic-
able to the present issue, whose existence cannot otherwise be explained. (See also
p. 295.)
1
CIL. x, 7967. 4
Cf. Wagenvoort, QAS. x, p. 12.
2
This is found under Augustus at one other 5 Cf. Fabricius, SB. Heidelberg, xv, 1924-5,
Roman city, co&«w Lystra (p. 250), and on a number p. 23; Rudolph, Stadt und Stoat im romischen
of his Greek coins; it is common in the Republic Italien, pp. 186 ff.
but not revived in Rome until 68-69 (Mattingly, 6
Cf. Delgado 11, p. 230; Vives Hi, p. 59. 45
BMC. Imp. pp. lxix, lxxiv. See also p. 271). 1 Cf. Kornemann, PW. xvi, 599.
3
E.g. Kornemann 201, 282; 72 Pietas. 8
Cf. Ritterling, PW. X I I , 1243.
154 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA

2. H I S P A N I A T A R R A C O N E N S I S : Emporiae, Dertosa, Saguntum,

Calagurris, Osca, Turiaso, Bilbilis, Ilerda

The most extensive and one of the most significant of the coinages o f Roman municipia
is that o f Emporiae. H i l l arranges the Roman asses, all o f which have a Pegasus as
1

reverse type, i n the following chronological order:

A . E M P O R I A head o f D i a n a — M V N I C I P I . (PL V , 18).
B. Head of Minerva, often with stylised helmet of two lobes (PL V , 16)—EMPOR.
C. (a) Head o f Minerva as last: usually four initials, consisting o f names o f t w o
magistrates, w i t h Q . — E M P O R f l T . ] .
(6) D o . , usually w i t h six initials. (PL V , 15 is transitional between C [a] and
c m
He classes smaller coins ( D ) partly w i t h B and partly w i t h C. This order is preferable
3
to Delgado's arrangement A - O B - D , * or to the distribution o f B, b y Pujol y Camps,
among the earliest and latest o f the series. But a piece bearing the names Q. V., A . I . ,
C(ensores)* classed by H i l l w i t h C (a), is distinct from that class i n style; i t is actu-
ally the earliest o f the whole series, and belongs to the eighties B.C.5 A l l other coins
belong to our period. H i l l concludes t h a t ' an exact dating of the various Groups seems
6
to be beyond reach', but a very close approximation is possible.
The only issue i n ( A ) (PL V , 18)? shows a head o f Diana whose shape and style
require comparison w i t h coins o f 49-44* rather than the denarii o f 81-73° or the
10
Massaliote pieces quoted by H i l l and Vives respectively. A portrait o f the same
curious form appears on coins of colonia Lepida Celsa, very soon after its foundation i n
1
Pp. 10 ff. ill, p. 130.
a
phiblogicae in honorem Th. Mommsen, p. 820) to
3
MNE. in, 1873, p. 10. have ceased by 133 B.C.; but they continued later
4
Madrid, Pujol y Santo coll.; Hill, pi. I l l , 3; cf. (see p. 162 n. 5). The weight of the present piece,
Vives, pi. C X X X I , 2; Pujol y Camps, MNE. 111, and its close resemblance to the Saguntine issues,
1873, p. 154. indicate that it should be assigned to the brief period
5 Delgado's reverse reading MVNICIPI. is of semuncial coinage after 89 B.C. (Mattingly, RC.
erroneous. Hill says of (C) (a): 'on the obverse is a p. 17). Q.V., A.I., C . is parallel to P.L., L . L . , Q.,
string of initials usually accompanied by Q.' (p. 33) etc of group (C): Q.V. and A.I. were C(ensores) 9

—quinquennalis (see below, p. 156). But Q. at the local officials who were gradually superseded by
beginning, as here, can bear no such meaning. Q(uinquennales) after the Lex Julia of 90 B.C. (cf.
Moreover, the head is of a type quite foreign to all Marquardty^r. V. 1, pp. 485 f.; Sherwin-White, p. 85).
other coins of group (C) (as recognised by Delgado The isolation of this coin is explained by the almost
in, p. 224; Vives, p. 8), and strongly reminiscent immediate general cessation of aes after that date
of Roman denarii from c. 124 to c. 89 B.C. (e.g. (p. 3), from which this mint was not excepted.
BMCR. pi. X X V H ff.). In execution the coin most 6
P. 37. 7 BM, Berlin,
resembles heavy asses with similar groups of initials E.g. BMCR. pi. LID, 13-19; LTV, 1; L V , 8.
8

from Saguntum (e.g. Inst, de Valencia de Don E . S. G . Robinson confirms this.

Juan, Madrid, Hill, pi. X X I I I , 4, etc.). These are Q
BMCR. pi. X L I , 16.
asserted by Zobel de Zangroniz {Commentationes 1 0
Cf. Vives iv, p. 6.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 155
44 B.C. (p. 211), and the style suggests a close parallel to inauguratory issues o f muni-
cipium Simitthu(?) at the same date (p. 178). The new title o f M V N I C I P I . is explained
1
by L i v y , who speaks o f the previous existence at Emporiae o f separate Spanish and
Greek communities, which were enfranchised i n turn, i n 45-44, to become a citizen
community w i t h a core o f coloni ab divo Caesare post devictos Pompeii liberos adiecti.
This inexact use o f coloni is paralleled at municipium Agrigentum* etc. (p. 324).
A similar draft has already been noted at another Julian municipium, Uselis (p. 153),
and occurred also at others o f later date. The unique occurrence of M V N I C I P I . , and the
stylistic analogies from c. 44, indicate that this coin commemorates the constitutio by
Caesar:3 i t has been mentioned that there is not a single municipal mint outside Italy
at which foundation-coinage does not open the series. The survival o f Iberian letter-
4
forms, rightly cited b y H i l l as an argument i n favour o f earliness, is understandable
at a time shortly after the amalgamation o f the Iberian population, a member o f which
no doubt cut these dies.5 H i l l , who argues for a date earlier than the forties, remarks:
6
'the form o f the P is not clear on specimens accessible to m e ' ; but on the example o f
8
which he provides a photograph,? as on others, i t is clearly closed. That this, however,
0
is not enough to justify the postponement o f this issue b y Botet y Siso is shown b y the
following group:—
10
Hill's group ( B ) , which (contrary to his statement) exhibits every shape o f the
letter from square" to closed." Even as early as c. 65 B.C. the same variation is visible
on denarii, * so that the prolonged subsequent preference for the open form at Rome
1

cannot be considered to exclude contemporary appearances o f the closed form else-

where. The earliest o f the asses i n group (B) has a head o f similar appearance to the
14

semuncial piece o f Q. V . , A . I . , C , though o f later style; the likeness is not due to contem-
poraneity, but to a natural imitation o f local models. A number o f smaller denomina-
x
tions ( D ) 5 seem attributable (though without certainty) to this period. Its lower limit
can be defined w i t h some exactness by the following group, to which the asses o f this
16
class are closely linked, by style and by the common possession o f a countermark that
may be intended to represent a palm-branch.
1
xxxiv, 9. The citation by Pujol y Camps, l.c. p. 156, of a
5

* Cf. Kubitschek, SB. Wien, CLXXVII, Abh. 4. trilingual piecefrpmthe Sanatuja collection (Tarra-
1916, p. 104. gona) is very dubious. P. 32.
6

3
Livy's silence regarding earlier civitas or Beziers (Hill, pi. HI, 1).
7

Latinitas in no way invalidates the present attribu- Vives, pi. C X X I , 1.

8

tion of Q.V., A.I., C , since at Saguntum, where, as Noticia historica y arqueologica de la antiga
9

has been mentioned, similar early Latin issues were ciudad de Emporion, p. lxxiii.
struck, there is likewise no record of a Roman or P. 33.
1 0 1 1
BM.
n
Latin community before our period. In both cases Leningrad.
it is unlikely that the cities possessed more than BMCR. pi. X L V I , 6, cf. 9: pi. X L V I I , 4, cf. 6.
1 3

1 4
Latin rights before Julius. BM.
4
P. 36; cf. Sutherland, RIS. p. 113; Pujol y 5 Hill, p. 34.
x

Camps, MNE. 111, 1873, PP- 94, 135- Hague (Hill, pi. HI, 2); cf. BM (P.L., L . L . , Q.).
1 6
156 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
Hill's group ( C ) includes, i f none are lost, sixteen sets o f initials, each certainly i n -
cluding praenomen, nomen and sometimes cognomen o f two men, and each followed b y 1

Q. H i l l ' s interpretation as quinquennalis is clearly preferable to Hiibner's quaestor:

2 3

the evidence o f the early coin w i t h Q. V . , A . I . , C[ensores] is supported by an analogy

4
from Carteia, where a similar series w i t h Q. is preceded b y issues o f L . Rai. L . A g r i .
CE(n)S(ores)*$ The single letter Q. is a regular abbreviation for quinquennalis the 6

name o f the officials who were earlier called censores (p. 154). Without here entering
7
into the difficult question o f the exact incidence o f these municipal officials, i t is clear
that the sixteen quinquennial years represented b y this group must be extended at least
over a period varying only slightly from the theoretical figure o f seventy-six years.
Now i t is unlikely that any o f the series are pre-Caesarian, since a piece whose style
indicates a date earlier than most o f the rest bears the names o f C. I . N I C O M . ,
8
P. F L . , Q. ( P i . V , 15): the first o f these men is almost certainly a C. Julius w i t h a
Greek cognomen. Even i f we could reckon the commencement o f this group from the
actual granting o f municipal status i n c. 45-44 B.C., its termination would leave a margin
o f not more than a decade before the general cessation o f Spanish aes after the reign o f
Caligula.9 But groups (A) and (B) are to be assigned to the first years of the municipium:
it is therefore highly probable that the issues by quinquennales began i n c. 40-39 or
3 5-34 B.C. and continued until the very last Spanish aes was suppressed. I t is also
noteworthy that an example w i t h C. I . N I C O M . , P. F L . , Q. (the name o f P. F L . is
repeated on the reverse, perhaps to indicate that he, as junior duovir, was responsible 10

for the issue) demonstrates a transitional fluctuation from the square open" to the
12
closed form o f P. But three coins w i t h four initials each (including one with a counter-
13
mark found also on group [B]) have an exclusively open f o r m , and an early style;
while on three other varieties, each including at least one magistrate w i t h the tria
nominal an exclusively closed form is accompanied by a debased style w i t h a ridicu-
lously formalised double-lobed helmet, and dots scattered even between the C and N
of a praenomen. * The attribution o f these two main varieties—without and w i t h
1

cognomina respectively—to the beginning and end o f the series respectively is confirmed
by the regular weights o f the later group, approximating closely to those o f the
Roman asses, by the wildly fluctuating standards o f the earlier one, recalling official
16 17

coinage i n the thirties and early twenties, and by the fact that Spanish citizens did not
1
Hill, p. 33. * Ibid. I.e. not commalis (p. 196).
1 0

3 CIL. 11, p. 615. Vives iv, p. 15.

4 1 1
Berlin. 1 2
BM (or nearly closed?).
5 Stockholm; cf. Delgado 1, p. 98; Lorichs, '3 L . C . , C.R., Q.; C . I . , L . C . , Q.; P . L . , L . L . ,
Recherches numismatiques, p. 111; cf. Zaccaria, Q. (BM: cf. Vives iv, pp. 8 f.; Hill, p. 35).
Instituciones antiquario-lapidarias, p. 400. 1 4
C. G A T . , C. O. CAR., Q.; CN. C. GR.,
6
Cf. Neumann, De quinquerutalibus colordarum et L . C. F., Q.; L . M. R V F . , P. C , Q. (BM, ibid.).
murdcipiorum, Diss. Leipzig, 1892, p. 25. Copenhagen; cf. Vives iv, p. 8. 12.
1 5

7
Ibid. pp. 30 ff.; see below, p. 159. Average of fifteen specimens in BM: c. 166
1 6

8
BM; cf. Vives, pi. C X X I , 9 (but not two Q.'s). grains.
9 Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xix. E.g. 206, 201,186,119, 93 grains (BM).
1 7
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 157
regularly use a cognomen until the middle o f our period. Transitional i n style is a
1

2
college which signs both as M . O. H . , L . A . F., Q . and as M . O., L . A . , Q.,3 and others,
after the introduction of the tria nomina, on which the letter P still fluctuates i n form. 4

Near, or at, the very end are C. T . C , Q. C. C A R . , Q.,5 attempting a less peculiar
6
kind o f helmet, and M . A . B., M . F. M . , Q., w i t h a much neater execution and a
closed P w i t h long upper stroke.
I t is thus possible to make a fairly exact arrangement o f the series. This arrangement
permits the important conclusion that a Roman municipium still preserved semblance
enough o f its autonomy to continue, for three-quarters o f a century, to issue coins
differing only in minutiae, and identical i n that they make no mention whatsoever of the
princeps or any other central authority: they retain the early form of ethnic (probably
7
in the Genitive Plural as on coins o f Panormus ) which varies from E M P O R . to
E M P O R I T . Moreover, this coinage, although conservative i n character, must have
8
formed an important part o f the monetary system, since its circulation was enormous.
Such an extensive series is valuable evidence for comparison and contrast w i t h the
colonies (p. 324).
The magistrates who sign this coinage are impossible to identify, owing to the abbre-
viation o f their signatures. But the names P. C , P. C. Pu., Cn. C. P., seem to bear
witness to a dominant clientela o f the Claudii Pulchri—possibly Emporitans figured
largely i n the suite o f the tribune Clodius. I f this is the case, these quinquennales
0

enabled the conjunction o f names to survive when the real Pulchri were nearly
extinct. C. O. C(ar). is probably a kinsman o f the North Spanish libertus M . Octavius
10

12
Sabini f. Caricus," who may have taken his name from the triumvir. C. O. C(ar). is
twice i n office: so are a number o f others, including C. Julius Nicomedes, i f C. I . is
the same man. His colleague P. Fl. is likely to be a relative o f the renegade Caesarian
13
from Hasta, C. Flavius. Elsewhere there is even less certainty. Q. C. C(ar). recalls the
14
Cornelii Carpi, Cn. C. Gr.the Cornelii Gratiani,^ both Spanish families which perhaps
owed their gentilicia to legati o f Pompey. L . M . Ruf. may possibly be the Baetican
16

17 18 1
L . Marcius Rufus, but might equally be a Spanish Magnius or a Memmius Rufus. *
1
Cf. the earliest issues of colonia Celsa, in con- Numismatique et d'Archeologie, V I , 1890, p. 20),
trast to the rest; and, for elsewhere, Ramsay, but also in Gallia Narbonensis and Comata (for
Anatolian Studies to Buckler, 1939, p. 207. statistics, see below, p. 297).
2
BM; cf. Vives iv, p. 9. 21. 9
They seem established before the proconsulship
3 BM;ibid. p. 8. 16. of Ap. Pulcher in 33 B.C. (CIL. i , p. 77).
2

4
E.g. CN. C. P., C. M. A., Q.; C. O. C , 1 0
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 493. 1 1
CIL. 11, 2928.
C. M. A:, Q.; P. C. PV., Q. C. C , Q. 1 2
On the choice of names by liberti vide Syme,
5 Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan; cf. Vives Actes du Ve Congres de Papyrologie, 1937, p. 466.
iv, p. 8. 4. X
3 Bell. Hisp. 26. 2.
6
BM; cf. Vives iv, p. 8. 5. 1 4
CIL. 11, 3573, 4008. 5 Ibid. 4143.
x

7
BM, Paris (Tiberius). 1 6
Cf. Syme, JRS. 1938, p. 118 n. 34.
8
Very large quantities not only in Spain 1 7
CIL. 11, 985.
(especially Pujol mus.; Engel, Bulletin mensuel de 1 8
Ibid. 2029. Ibid. 1460.
1 9
158 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA

A second period o f Julian enfranchisement i n Tarraconensis is introduced by a

single issue o f Dertosa o f the Ilercavones. This includes an as and a semis, whose
1 2

types o f a light galley, accompanying respectively a larger ship and a dolphin and
anchor, indicate, as at Ilici (p. 213), the nautical preoccupations o f the town. I t is
described, without any additional legend, as M(unicipium) H(ibera) I V L I A DERT(o^a)
IL(ercavonia)—the epithets being i n apposition, not to the w o r d mttmcipium, but to the
ethnic, just as at Bilbilis (p. 170) and Zama Regia (p. 182). Such completely isolated
coinages within this period are scarcely found outside the category o f foundation-
issues,* o f which a large number (including no less than eleven not explicitly referring
to their occasion) stand equally alone at their city (p. 290). N o r is this at all likely to be
a single exception to the invariable inauguration o f municipal mints by coinage o f this
kind (p. 290). I t is also significant that three other Tarraconensian municipia place their
secondary names—like Ilercavonia here —on their foundation-pieces, but none o f them
4

on issues o f other kinds (pp. 165,168,170). This coinage must be considered to belong
to the same category. N o w the city, being Iulia, must have been established as a
Roman municipium before 27:5 but the style o f these pieces is inconsistent w i t h a date
6
much earlier than the twenties.
The inference o f a municipalisation policy i n the years immediately following
7
A c t i u m is confirmed by the coinage o f four other cities o f this status which were
founded b y C. Calvisius Sabinus i n c. 30-29 or T . Statilius Taurus i n c. 29-28.
One o f these can be deduced from pieces which have always been wrongly attri-
buted to colonia Carthago Nova. These comprise the issues o f six colleges: 8

1. Helvius Pollio, Albinus Hvir qidnq.—Sabinus imp. C. M. ( P i . V I , 6).°

2. Cn. Stati. Libo praef. sacerdos ( P i . V I , 9). 10

1
Berlin: Hill, pi. X I , 1. relies partly on Strabo's word KorroiKio (in, p. 195),
1
Vidal Quadras y Ramon coll.: Hill, pi. X I , 2 but Hill points out the elasticity of this term,
(illustrated). 6
Tiberius repeats the type (Hill, pi. X I , 3), but
3
The coins are too early in appearance to belong the execution is of a different character and does not
to the series of jubilee issues (p. 153). warrant the attribution of the present pieces to the
4
It is explained by the local tribe of the Her- end of Augustus's principate, pace Vives iv, p. 18.
cavones (Schulten, PW. ix, 1092; cf. Hill, p. 74 7
Sutherland, RIS. p. 123, attributes the coloni-
nn. 18, 19), so that there is no reason to adopt the sation of Dertosa and other cities to Caesar, solely
hypothesis of a double community—supposed to because 'the names Iulius or Caesar, unsupple-
consist of two Roman municipia—put forward by mented by Augustus, are not characteristic of the
Kubitschek, Imp. p. 193; Zobel de Zangroniz, foundations of the first princeps*. But he thereby
MNE. v, 1880, p. 129. entirely neglects the period before 27 B.C.: what else
5 It remained of that rank throughout the present but Iulia could Octavian have called his colonies at
period, and attributions of colonial coinage and this time? Similar attributions are made by van
status are equally false: see Hill, p. 75 n. 20, cor- Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916, p. 103, presumably
recting Hiibner, MLI. p. 38, who is followed in the for the same reason.
former assumption by Imhoof-Blumer, MG. pp. 162, 8
In this list relevant details omitted on the coins
166,252, and in the latter by Albertini, Les divisions are restored as far as possible.
administrativesdeVEspagneromaine ^.6y Albertini
y
9
Vives iv, p. 34. 12 f. 1 0
Delgado 1, p. 126.
 THE R O M A N MUNICIPIA 159

3. Hibero praef. M . Agrippae Hviri quinq., Q. Vario praef. (PL V I , 8). 1

4. L . Bennio praef. I m p . Caesaris 7 / v / r i ^aw^., Q. Vario praef. 7,

5. L . Bennio />rae£ I m p . Caesaris Z/Wri quinq. Hibero praef M . Agrippae

y Hviri
quinq.i
6. Hibero praef, Helvio Pollione praef. T i . Neronis Hviri quinq.*

I t is necessary to demonstrate, first, that these constitute a homogeneous series, and

secondly, that their attribution to Carthago Nova is groundless.
The first o f these problems can be solved without much difficulty, although evi-
dence concerning provenance is almost valueless.* Style and community o f names
6
indicate the conjunction o f 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6; 2 shows the same style, provenance,? and
8 9
portraiture as 3 and 4, which i t also resembles significantly in metal. N o t one o f these
types has any connection w i t h Carthago Nova: i t is very difficult to find any reason
at all for their inclusion among the series attributed to this town, which, together w i t h
Panormus, has succeeded Corinth among numismatists as a general repository for
uncertain colonial pieces. Moreover, the present series presents a marked divergency
from the certain coins o f colonia Carthago Nova, whose style is distinct and whose
honorary duoviri qidnquennales are never accompanied by their praefecti (p. 215).
Finally, although a few quinquennalian colleges have been rightly reattributed from
10
Carthago Nova to Cnossus (p. 261), there remain, b y the current arrangement, at
least seventeen ( o f most heterogeneous appearance), which must be crammed between
the foundation i n c. 45 B . C . — o r even later"—and the death o f Augustus. Quin-
quennaies held office for one year," every five (not four) years ; 3 under exceptional x

circumstances longer gaps might occur (p. 164 n. 4), but nothing could necessitate their
abbreviation. A t least eighty-one years would be necessary for the inclusion o f these
seventeen colleges at one city; but less than sixty years are available, and even i f two
1
Hiibner, MLL p. 89; Paris. Nova, since the same gens occurs on published in-
2
Vives, l.c 21. 3
Ibid. 18-20. scriptions of at least three other towns in Tarra-
4
Ibid. 17. 5 E.g. Heiss, pp. 271 ff. conensis, e.g. CIL. 11,6256 (Emporiae), 5834 (Osca),
6
And a coin with the names of Hiberus and 3603 (Gandia). It is a common Etruscan name; cf.
C. Luci. P.f. (Vives 16, pi. V I , 7), which will be Schulze, p. 151.
shown to belong to the earlier coinage of the city's Cf. del Rivero, Madrid Cat. p. 24.
7

Latin period (see below, p. 162). Another piece of Unrecognised by Babelon, Rn. 1889, p. 511;
8

the same category, signed by C . Caedi. and T . Eckhel, DN. v, p. 316; Delgado 1, p. 126.
Popili. Hvir. quinq. (Vives 2), has a palm-branch of Spectrogram 52; cf. 51. Both have traces of
0

a characteristic type bound also on (5). A variant nickel, not a common constituent.
of 1 (BM) has a coiled snake which recalls a similar 1 0
Heiss, p. 275.
piece of L . Fabric P. Atelli. (pi. VH, 17): attribution 1 1
Hubner, PW. 111, 1624.
of the latter to Cyrenaica by Muller, L c , Borghesi, n
Neumann, De quinquennalibus coloniarum et
(Suvresy 11, pp. 403, 406 f. is rejected by Robinson, municipiorum. Diss. Leipzig, 1892, p. 35; cf. CIL. x,
BMC. Cyrenaica p. ccx; and an argument based
9 5670, etc.
on the occurrence of Atellii (Heiss, p. 273) M s 1 3
Festus (Teubner ed. p. 316); cf. Neumann, ibid,
completely to confirm its attribution to Carthago p. 30; Mommsen, St.R. 11, p. 344.
160 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
of the colleges could be believed to belong to the same year owing to resignation or
1
death, the collective attribution to Carthago Nova remains impossible.
A clue is fortunately obtainable from ( i ) , which bears a veiled female head to right,
and a trophy with the words SABINVS and IMP. i n the upper and lower parts o f the
field respectively, on either side o f the letters C. M . There can be little doubt that here
is the name o f C. Calvisius Sabinus, who obtained the title o f imperator* and a triumph
2

4
during his governorship o f Spain i n c. 31-29 B.C. For C. M . , Sestini's* suggestion
C(naeus) M(agnus) need only be mentioned to be refuted, since i t accords neither w i t h
orthographical practice nor w i t h the hitherto unrecognised identification with Cal-
visius. N o r does a suitable C(olonia) M • • • • exist. A solution is provided b y an
6

examination o f numismatic custom elsewhere. I n this period the eponymous mention

of governors is doubtful even on Eastern coinage (p. 399), and certainly does not occur
in the West. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Calvisius's signature records his
permission to coin, since even i n 'senatorial' Baetica this is reserved for Augustus
7
(p. 174); moreover, Calvisius's title of proconsul—which would have been introduced
to warrant such a permission—is here omitted. Indeed, at this time the name o f a
governor appears on the coinage o f Roman cities i n one connection only—when he
was its founder or refounder. N o t only are numerous colonial deductores and ad-
signatores recorded in this fashion, but several coinages commemorate the commissioners
who supervised the enfranchisement o f municipia? Under the Republic such commis-
0
sioners had been the exception rather than the rule, but Julius's schemes necessitated
them, and thereafter municipal foundations i n the provinces were invariably placed i n
10
the hands o f governors. These, like colonial founders, are loosely described as
conditores, but, more exactly—as the terminology o f Cicero" and o f the
11
LexAgraria * 1

shows—as constitutores. Sabinus, then, is Constitutor) M(unicipi), just as M . Lurius

at colonia Turris Libisonis is D(eductor) C(oloniae) (p. 206). I t is characteristic o f a
municipium, as opposed to a colony, that Augustus is honoured on these coins, not i n
his statio principis, but rather as an honorary local magistrate. The view that this is a
14

foundation-issue is not affected b y the presence o f quinquennales, who were entirely

1
There is no record or probability of suffectio. 9 Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 135.
2
PIR. 11, p. 83. 352.
2 1 0
Cf. Gauckler, Bulletin de la Sociiti nationale des
3
ILS. 889. antiquaires de France, 1898, p. 114.
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 302, correcting CIL. i\ p. 77.
4 1 1
E.g. CIL. vm, 79.
Like Ganter, p. 17, he regards him as governor of 1 2
Fam. XIII, 11. 3: constituendi municipii causa.
the whole peninsula. 1 3
Fabricius, SB. Heidelberg, 1924-5, 1. Abh.,
5 Mus. Fontana, Spain, p. 220. pp. 16 ff.: quae colonia hoc lege deducta quodve
6
Metellinum (in Lusitania) does not accord with municipium prqefectura forum conciliabulum consti-
style, provenance or probability. tutum erit.
1 4
7 Permission by governors only occurs, several This peculiarity of the coinage eliminates the
decades later, in the first-class consular provinces of possibility of the alternative interpretation Coloniam
Africa and Syria (coloniae Simitthu [?] and Berytus). munivit; cf. the character of Spanish colonial coin-
8
Listed in Appendix 4. ages (pp. 211 ff.).
 THE R O M A N MUNICIPIA 161
appropriate to cities which had already possessed Latinitas: the occurrence o f a
lustrum within Calvisius's governorship confirms the possibility o f this at the present
city, since i t suggests a grant o f Latinitas i n c. 45-44 by Caesar, who was generous
1
in this respect.
The activity o f Sabinus as a founder is confirmed by inscriptions. These record
Spanish natives—of the tribe Galeria to which new citizens i n Spain were at this time
2
regularly assigned —who are called Calvisius Sabinus, but are the sons o f men w i t h
3
peregrine names. One o f these, the son o f Aiion, is commemorated at Uxama and
4
Clunia. These towns are both unsuitable for the present coins, since they were not o f
Roman status.* Nevertheless, Spaniards are often found i n cities other than those o f
6
their birth, and this Calvisius Aiionis f. Sabinus may be considered to owe his name to
the activity o f the governor Calvisius as Constitutor) or C(onditor)J
Possibly Dertosa was one o f his foundations, but the present coinage is incom-
patible i n style and type with the issues o f that city. Various indications combine to
suggest that the town to which these six colleges belong was Saguntum. I n the first place,
the dolphin on the earlier coin o f C. Caedi. and T . Popili. at the same mint (p. 15 9 n. 6 ) —
a rare enough type i n Spain to warrant comparisons—occurs i n a similar form on a
8
coin o f Saguntum. Further, for what such prosopographical indications are worth,
9 10
the Popilii—spice magnates —are found w i t h especial frequency at that t o w n , and the
C. Luci. P. f. on another early piece o f the pre-municipal series" is very plausibly
identifiable with a Saguntine duovir C. Lucilius who appears on an inscription o f the
last years of the Republic." Thirdly, these pre-municipal coinages suggest the possession
of Latinitas, which, as at coloniae Ilici and Carthago Nova (pp. 214,217), explains the
quinquennales on the foundation-issue. Many foederati, such as Saguntum had originally
been, were * promoted' to Latinitas by Caesar; but Saguntum may have received this
13 14

much earlier. A t all events, i t was still lacking full civitas i n the late Republic, * but had
1

certainly attained municipal status by c. 8 B . C . ; and this coinage must be attributed to

1 6

1
Cf. McElderry, JRS. vm, 1918, pp. 70 ff.; league is a Caedius or Caedicius (cf. Schulze,
Sherwin-White, pp. 176 f. pp. 137, 522 n. 3). A Caedicius was a Roman banker
2
Cf. Kubitschek, Imp. p. 167. under Augustus (cf. Herzog, PW. xvn, 1430).
3
CIL. 11, 2822. 4
Ibid. 2782. 1 1
It occurs only at Carthago Nova—where, as
5 For Clunia, cf. Hiibner, PW. iv, 113. has been mentioned, a different usage prevails, the
6
Cf. Hiibner, ibid.; West, Imperial Roman Spain, praefecti being recorded together with the quin-
The Objects of Trade, pp. 80 ff. quennales whom they represent.
7 New citizens were already in the habit of taking 1 2
CIL. 11, p. 126.6021 a, correcting 3861. Duoviri
the nomen (and often the cognomen also) of their were quite frequent at provincial municipia; cf.
enfranchiser; cf. Cuntz, Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Stevenson, RPA. p. 172 and below, p. 169 n. 3.
Inst, xxv, 1929, p. 70. 1 3
Cf. Horn, Foederati, Diss. Frankfurt, 1930,
8
BM; cf. Hill, pi. X X I I I , 13. At Carteia it is p. 44 n. 26.
differently represented (Delgado 1, pp. 98 ff.). 1 4
Cf. McElderry,/ft?, vm, 1918, p. 70.
9
Cf. Loane, Johns Hopkins University Studies in 5 Cf. Sutherland, RIS. p. 116.
X

History and Political Science, LVI, 2, 1938, p. 142. CIL. 11,3827; cf. Pliny,NH. 111,20; Kubitschek,
1 6

1 0
CIL. 11, 6026, etc.; cf. Hill, p. 124. His col- Imp. p. 198.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA

one o f the few municipia o f which a series is not already k n o w n . H i l l particularly 1

notes that 'the absence o f coins o f Augustus at Saguntum is puzzling*. A n objection

which this attribution might suggest is the division o f Tiberius's coinage at that city
between duoviri (for the asses) and aediles (for the semisses). But elsewhere als
division o f labour does not begin before Tiberius:* i n his principate^ coinage b y
quinquennales is exceptional, but under Augustus i t is regular. I t may be added
that Hiibner's belief that the chief magistrates at Saguntum were aediles 3 cannot
be maintained except perhaps for a much earlier period, since inscriptions o f the early
principate show the usual cursus honorum, including the aedileship before the duo-
4

virate. As far, then, as the magistracies are concerned, there is a free range o f choice;
other available evidence tends to the view that Saguntum is the city which C. Calvisius
Sabinus constituted as a municipium i n 31-29 B.C., and is our mint.
I t has been mentioned that at least three collegia generally attributed to Carthago
Nova must be attributed to the pre-municipal period o f the present city, when i t was
o f Latin status.* The earliest coin after the constitutio appears to be that o f Cn. Stati.

1
P. 126. the latter is also the earliest coin to state the transi-
* E.g. Turiaso (ibid. pi. X X X I V , 3-5), etc. tion from an aedilician to a duoviral regime. The
3 CIL. 11, 3853; cf. Hill, p. 123. two pieces therefore partly serve to bridge the gap
4
CIL. 11, 3864, 3865. between the bilingual and municipal coinages.
5 See above, p. 159 n. 6—(a) L . Fabric. P. Atelli. Possibly slighdy earlier are other small pieces with
(b) C. Caedi. T . Popili. Hvir quinq. (c) Hiberus signatures unqualified by tides of office (Hill, p. 125),
C. Luci. P.f. Hvir quinq. (PI. VI, 7). There is no like the issue of L . Fabric. P. Atelli., whose fabric
reason why the issue with Sabinus's name should suggests a date earlier than 28 B.C. These attribu-
be earlier than these series, since Saguntum had an tions are supported by the general unlikelihood that
extensive (bilingual) Republican coinage. Hill the important Saguntine mint remained inactive in
points out that the assumption of Zobel de Zan- the years after c. 45 B.C, while many Spanish cities
groniz that this ceased as early as 133 B.C. is un- of all classes were coining (see Appendix 10). The
acceptable (cf. Sutherland, RIS. p. 111): and weights last of the pre-municipal issues appears to be that of
make it likely that the Republican asses and quad- Hiberus and C. Luci. P.f. The inscription on which
rantes belong to successive periods. The former the Saguntine duovir C . Lucilius appears (CIL. n,
average c. 318 grains (six specimens), and were prob- 6021 a) is late Republican, and the style of the head
ably issued before the semuncial reduction, but the on this coin suggests a similar date: but it is not
latter—which often bear a mark of value (Hill, Octavian or Antony, as has been suggested to the
p. 124)—are based on an as averaging only c. 198 writer, and its manner induces doubts whether it
grains (three specimens), just like the Julian (and represents a portrait at all. Some specimens (Paris,
many Augustan) asses of other cities (semisses usually etc.) show clearly that the object in front of the face,
weigh rather more than half their contemporary sometimes described as a prow, is a stream pouring
asses). These quadrantes, of which the earliest look from the mouth of the head, as on coins showing
only a little later than the heavy asses, fall most the river-god of Emerita (p. 221): the type is thus
plausibly into the four decades between the sem- clearly a play Upon the name of the quinquennalis
uncial reduction and the dictatorship. One of the Hiberus. Similarjeux de mots accompany the names
latest of them (BM, cf. Hill, pi. X X I I I , 13)—the Malleolus and Sura in a similar office (at coloniae
only one with a Latin ethnic—has a dolphin type Carthago Nova and Buthrotum [pp. 217,271]), and
closely resembling that of C. Caedi. and T . Popili.: are common on official coins (e.g. gallus at Arelate,
 T H E R O M A N MUNICIPIA 163
1
Libo praef. sacerdos. The execution o f the portrait requires a date not. more than a few
years later than Actium, and Libo's exceptional non-quinquennalian rank suggests a
date prior to the stereotyped formulae o f issues (3M4). I t has been pointed out that
style, provenance and metal demand attribution w i t h the present series; and sacerdos
is a local rather than a Roman title. Libo's rank as praefectus without colleague is
appropriate to personages representing the princeps, when the latter had accepted the
2
honorary office o f duovir or quinquennalis. But this praefectus must have b
3
unusual significance, as his exceptional coinage and portrayal show. The clue to his
importance is provided by the close proximity i n date o f his pieces to the foundation-
issue o f Calvisius Sabinus. Sabinus was the constitutor, and i n this capacity would
naturally have appointed an adsignator for the actual task o f installing municipal
institutions (p. 151). Since this was a lengthy operation, the adsignator was often
4

elected to the first duovirate iure dicundo o f the newly enfranchised city* i n order to be
able to see for himself, at first hand, the workings o f his new constitution. Indeed, at
colonia Venafrum, L . Aclutius T . f. Gallus completed his adsignatio and still stayed o
for several years, at first as praefectus i. d. for Augustus (p. 285). This interpretation,
as analogies w i l l show, explains the very extraordinary issue o f Cn. Stati. Libo. I n
31, 30, or 29 he was adsignator to Calvisius, and, when the quinquennales o f that y
who owe their title to the previous existence o f a Latin community which observed the
lustra (pp. 214, 217)—had retired from office, he continued i n office as praefectus iur
dicundo, acting for the princeps who had accepted the duovirate for the year. Thus
Libo's coinage, like that o f Calvisius, comes within the category o f foundation-issues,
and was no doubt provided from the fund allotted to that purpose (p. 291). This
interpretation is confirmed by the discovery that, at municipium Cephaloedium also,
separate coins were issued in honour both o f constitutor and o f adsignator (p. 192).
municipium Zama Regia an adsignator actually o f 29 B . C . is honoured w i t h portrait
(p. 184). This coincidence suggests that the foundation o f Saguntum occurred i n
c. 29 (rather than 31), a conclusion confirmed by other evidence o f an active enfran-
chisement policy at this date i n Spain as i n Italy (pp. 306 ff.). Thus we may attribute the
praefectura o f Cn. Stati. Libo to a year or so later (c. 28). He is unknown to history:
no doubt he was a good party-man, like Bennius and Hiberus after him—both o f
6
whom belonged to families in the service o f the princeps. They too were honoured by
rata at Ithaca (?) [pp. 42, 67]). Hiberus appears * Liebenam, St.V. p. 263; Kornemann, PW.
later in the position of praefectus, but the quin- xvi, 623.
3
quennalian duovirate could be held as young as the The portrait cannot possibly represent any
age of twenty (CIL. ix, 1156; cf. Neumann, De member of the princeps* house.
quinquennalibus, etc. p. 29). If (c) is placed later than 4
The two of them were sometimes called, in con-
Sabinus, it will be difficult to fit in the other colleges; junction, duoviri urbis moeniundae (p. 285).
it may, instead, be considered the last issue of the * Cf. Jullian, TP. pp. 28 f.
long series in the Latin right, and the immediate 6
PIR. 1,363.107, PIR. 11,143.118 respectively,
1

predecessor of the foundation-issue of Calvisius. The Bennii are a Messapian family (Schulze, p. 519),
1
Not of Julius, as del Rivero, Madrid Cat. p. 24. and Hiberus was presumably a Spaniard.
164 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
praefecturae for Augustus, i n successive quinquennalian years. They do not venture,
like Libo, to permit their own portrayal on their coins, but depict the honorary
duovir Augustus, imitating the heads on his Emeritan denarii.1 (5) provides an ex-
ception to the custom by which the praefectus o f the princeps had no colleague: here
this official is not alone, but accompanied by a praefectus o f Agrippa. This is a striking
demonstration o f the importance o f the latter during the last decade o f his life (p. 429).
Even i f this municipium was founded a year or two earlier than 29, the local lustrum
did not coincide w i t h that o f Rome.* Apparently i n defiance o f a clause i n the Table of
Heraclea, colonies and municipia generally preferred to observe their own lustra without
3

co-ordination w i t h Rome (cf. pp. 3ioff.)—whose observances were indeed irregular

4

5
even under Augustus, who viewed the census as an exceptional rather than a regular
6
measure. The quinquennalian years o f Saguntum probably fall i n 29, 24, 19, 14, 9,
4 B . C . , and A . D . 2, 7, 12. None o f the issues is attributable to the last four o f these
dates; a curtailment o f the independence o f some, i f not all, municipia is not improb-
able, since the revived Saguntine coinage under Tiberius is o f the regular 'imperial'
type.? The name o f T i . Nero on (6) suggests that c. 9 B . C . is the most appropriate o f the
quinquennalian years; but the order o f (3)-(5) cannot be established w i t h certainty.
Unless—as is hard to believe—two praefecti could jointly represent Augustus, the
legend o f (4) makes i t impossible to accept H i l l ' s conjecture that, when the duovir
8

whom a praefectus represents is not specified, the absentee is the princeps. N o answer can
be given to the question whether Q. Varius could hold the inferior position o f prae-
fectus o f Agrippa after he had already represented Augustus at a previous lustrum. But
it is fairly certain that the five colleges fill the first five quinquennalian years.

The coinages o f four other municipia in the same province are i n many ways homo-
geneous. Each mint is inaugurated w i t h a foundation-issue honouring the princeps
w i t h a portrait but not by name, and proceeds w i t h a series on which his name appears
in conjunction w i t h portraits o f the 'Caesaraugusta' and 'Patricia' models (or one o f

1
E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 291. year at Rome (cf. de Boor, l.c. pp. 29 f.). The failure
2
Cf. de Boor, Fasti Censorii, Diss. Berlin, 1873, of Pompeii, Pella, etc., to adjust their lustra to Rome
p. 29. is curious, in view of Augustus's inclusion even of
3
ILS. 6085; cf. also Abbott and Johnson, provincial citizens in his censorial operations (cf.
pp. 294 f. Schulz, Mnemosyne, 1937, pp. 173 ff.). It must be
4
E.g. Pompeii (cf. Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 92), concluded that the cities merely sent their latest
Pella (30 and 25 B.C.: see below, p. 282); cf. available results for inclusion in the statistics quoted
Neumann, l.c. p. 34, who shows that a lustrum was by Augustus (RG. 8).
never considered elastic. However, it might, in the 5 Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 148.
transitional years of the late Republic, be omitted 6
Cf. Schmahling, Wilriburger Studien iur Alter-
altogether, as at Venusia, which appointed quin- tumswissenschaft, XII, 1938, p. 165.
quennales in 29-28 B.C, but none in 34-33 {Fasti 7 For the decline of the municipia, see below,
Venusini, cf. Neumann, I.e. p. 31). Perhaps this was p. 324.
due to the non-observance of the lustrum in the same 8
P. 91; cf. p. 81.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 165
them) and finally w i t h heads o f the Lugdunese type. These cities also provide valuable
prosopographical information, since nearly all the pieces are signed. Three o f the four
series bear witness to Octavian's enfranchisement policy i n the period immediately
following the governorship o f Calvisius Sabinus. The first issue o f municipium
Calagurris consists o f asses (Pi. V , 20) and semisses* on which the secondary name
1 2

NASSICA is combined w i t h C A L A G V R R I I V L I A and C . V A L . C . S E X . A E D .

respectively. Nassica is to be compared w i t h Ilercavonia, Silbis, and Italica on other
4
initial coinages i n the Tarraconensian municipal series: all o f these are programme
issues requiring attribution to the constitutio municipi—an invariable occasion for
production by municipal mints. The present coinage demands the same interpretation.
Now since Calagurris is a Julian city, but the portraits on its first semisses and asses are
copied from denarii of c. 30* and c. 29-27* respectively, the date of its constitutio can be
narrowed down to the years 29-28. I n c. May 29 Calvisius Sabinus was succeeded as
7
governor o f Spain by T . Statilius Taurus, who is therefore most likely to have played
some part i n the foundation o f Calagurris. This conclusion is confirmed i n a remarkable
way by the fact that all the foundation-pieces have the type o f a bull, taurus—of which
a head appears on the semisses, and a full-length representation on the asses. A t this,
date the bull was a very rare type on Roman issues i n Spain, having occurred hitherto
only on the foundation-coinages o f Celsa and Carthago Nova: and i t w i l l be argued
that the former o f these was likewise issued during a former residence o f Statilius i n the
province, as legatus pro praetore (p. 212), and that the issue o f Carthago Nova was,
like the present piece, issued i n 29-28 (p. 217). Such jeux de mots are characteristic o f
Roman coinage o f this period: for example, a leg denotes Sura Hvir at colonia Buth-
rotum, a cock stands for Gallia at Arelate (?), a skate for a member o f the gens Raia at
Ithaca (?), a hammer for Malleolus at colonia Carthago Nova, and a river-god for Hiberus
at municipium Saguntum (cf. p. 162 n. 5 ) . The present pun had point owing to the religious
8
importance o f the bull not only i n Spain, but also i n Lucania,* the land o f Statilius's
10
origin. Thus Statilius was concerned i n the foundation o f Calagurris. But he does not
appear to have been the constitutor. The head of the princeps is a novelty on the founda-
tion-series, and suggests that the constitutio took place not i n 29 but i n 28, when, as an
issue o f Apamea demonstrates, he initiated the rule that foundations should be vested i n
his own hands, and reduced his governors to the role o f adsignatores (pp. 293 ff.). I t is
in this capacity that T . Statilius Taurus supervises the enfranchisement o f Calagurris

1
Kubitschek, Imp. p. 190; cf. Hiibner, CIL. 11, Ibid. 624, etc.
6

p. 404. Attributions to Calagurris Fibularia are Syme, RR. p. 302; Nagl, PW. (2*.), 111, 2201;
7

false; vide Lorichs, Recherches numismatiques, p. 87.cf. Dio LI, 20.

2
9M; Hill, pi. X X X V , 10. Cf. Lenzi, Rassegna numismatica, v, 1908,
8

* Hague; Hill, pi. X X X V , n . P. 33-

4
Dertosa, Turiaso, Bilbilis (pp. 158, 168, 170). 9 I owe this information to R. Syme; cf. also
5 BMC. Imp. Aug. 604, etc. (commemorating Schulze, p. 418.
Actium). Syme, RR. p. 437.
1 0
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
for the constitutor Octavian. Municipium Zama Regia (p. 182) provides a parallel
for the signatures o f aediles on foundation-coinages. Probably C. Valerius—who
belongs to the local aristocracy (see below)—and his colleague C. Sextius were the chief
local magistrates on the spot, owing to the honorary appointment o f Octavian and
Statilius Taurus to the senior college o f duoviri id. A t Paestum and Venafrum too the
founders were elected to the first regular magistracy (p. 285).
The mint remained active to produce a series w i t h obverse-legends M V N . C A L .
1 2 3
H V I R I and M V N . C A L . I V L . , w i t h inferior portraits, first from early models, and
4 6
then, apparently, from the * Caesaraugusta', * Patricia* 5 and 'Lugdunum* classes. The
title o f the princeps, here i n the form [IMP.] A V G V S T V S , is first introduced w i t h a
portrait modelled on Roman denarii o f 18 B.C.? After a few other duoviral coinages
8
w i t h similar titles, the Augustan series is terminated, as at other Tarraconensian cities,
by a group on which the princeps, laureate and P A T E R P A T R I A E occupies the
whole o f the obverse.* A t about the same date a pair o f aediles honours T i . Caesar
Augusti f. on a semis. The dominant families o f Calagurris were the Valerii, Baebii and
10

Granii, who are represented b y four (or five), two (or three) and two magistrates
respectively. The occurrence o f a Baebius Priscus at A r i m i n u m " suggests Umbrian
12
origin; but such deductions can never be certain; a knight A . Baebius from Hasta
13 14
had deserted to Julius i n 45, and Baebii are found at Saguntum under Augustus. The
1
Granii were certainly Italians, business-men from Puteoli, * and C. Mar. Cap. maybe a
16
Marius Capreolus from Beneventum. O n the other hand the Valerii Flavi, who occur
at several Tarraconensian cities, have a cognomen which suggests Spanish origin:
17

a freedman o f Tiberius or Germanicus bears the same name at Caesaraugusta (p. 218).
Valentini too are not uncommon i n the province. But Novus is a very rare cognomen,
18 10

1
Hill, p. 176: Q. Aem., C. Post. Mil.; Q. Antoni., Mari., M. Val. praef.; L . Baeb. Prisco, C . Granio
L . Fabi.; M \ Memmi., L . Juni. Broccho.
2
Ibid. p. 177: Q. Aemili., C. Post. Mil.; L . 9 Hill, p. 178: M. Lie. Capel., C . Ful. Rutil.;
Granio, C . Valerio; C . Mar. Cap., Q. Vrso; C. Semp. Barb., Q. Baeb. Flavo; L . Valentino,
M. Plae. Tran., Q. Vrso iterum. L . Novo.
3 E.g. Q. Antoni., L . Fabi. (Hill, pi. X X X V I , 2— Hill, p. 179 (BM): L . Val. Flavo, T . Val.
1 0

BM); cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 597. Possibly L . Granio, Merula. Cf. p. 43*6.
C. Valerio (Hill, l.c. 3—in trade), M. Plae. Tran., » C7Z.xi,447.
Q. Vrso iterum (Hill, l.c. 4—BM) are in the same Cf. Scharf, Neue Deutsche Forschungen, CLXXXV,
I a

class, but they may be later. 1938, p. 114 n. 129.

3 Bell. Hisp. 26. 2.
4
E.g. BM ( M \ Memmi., L . Juni.) [in shape], J

?? L . Granio, C. Valerio. Cf. Shnancas, MJSEA.

1 4
cxxiv [in, 1932],
5 E.g. BM ( M \ Memmi., L . Juni.), ?? M. Plae. p. 13.
Tran., Q. Vrso iterum. 5 Cf. Syme, RR. p. 90 n. 7.
X

6
E.g. BM (Q. Aem., C . Post. Mil.); cf. BMC. Cf. CIL. ix, 1874.
1 6

Imp. Aug. 455-7. CIL. 11, 2774, 2890, etc.

1 7

7
BMC. Imp. Aug. 63 ff. CIL. 11, 882, 2446, 3276, 4208.
1 8

8
Hill, p. 177: L . Baebio, P. Antestio; C . CIL. xi, 488, 7349.
1 9
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 167
1
and Ursus almost equally so: the appearance, i n Flavian times, o f a P. Plaetorius
2
Ursus at Potentia suggests that Q. Ursus here was connected by marriage w i t h his
colleague M . Plaetorius Tranquillus.
The coinage o f Osca follows an analogous process o f development, and its en-
franchisement appears to have been contemporary. Its inaugural asses} inscribed only
4
VRB. V I C . — O S C A , closely resemble i n style, module and weight the foundation-
pieces o f Calagurris, and its portrait o f the princeps is an inferior version o f the same
5 6
type and date. Again, there is, as at Calagurris, an accompanying semis (with
7
V . V . — O S C A ) . Although i n the earliest times urbs had signified a colony, and could
8
still so be used (p. 215), i t was later employed much more loosely: Osca belonged to
the class o f Roman municipia} whose new emergence from the category o f oppida
10
made o f the more flattering urbs a title worth using." I t is necessary to conclude that
Osca was founded as a municipium at the same date as municipium Calagurris—in c.
28 B.C.—and that T . Statilius Taurus was its adsignator and Octavian its constitutor. I n
accordance w i t h this chronological attribution is the peculiar applicability o f Osca's
epithet Victrix to the government o f Statilius, who was apparently hailed imperator for
the third time i n Spain."
13 14
The next issues from this m i n t have magistrates' names and A V G V S T V S D I V I
1 16
F.; their portraits are imitated from denarii of the' Patricia' class. * T w o more colleges
strike i n the usual late style incorporating the title P A T E R P A T R I A E (Pi. V , 25) and
17
a few semisses o f about the same date are not signed. I t is interesting to note that at
18
Osca, as at other Roman cities o f the province and elsewhere, a gens predominates i n
the chief magistracy—here the Aelii, o f whom a second and a third, Q- Proculus and
1
M . Maximus, appear as colleagues under Tiberius. ? Another Aelius Proculus is found
20
in the early Empire at Asturica. The family no doubt owed its importance to a P. Aelius
21
Proculus who was an imperial freedman. A n indication that the Aelii who settled at
22
Osca were originally from central Italy may be provided by Aelii Maximi from Ostia

1
CIL. xi, 1777, xiv, 4054; cf. Schulze,p. 115 n. 2. ILS. 893; cf. Hiibner, l.c. p. 480.
1 2
y
2
CIL. x, 137. '3 Hill, pi. X X V I , 11, 12; X X V I I , 3.
3 Milan, Cat. 137; cf. Hill, pi. X X V I I , 4 (horse- 1 4
M. Quinctio, C. Aelio.
man). 4 178 to 180 grains. 5 Berlin (Hill, pi. X X V I , 11): cf. BMC. Imp.
J

5 Cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 624 ff. 6

Madrid. Aug. 378 ff. See Sutherland, RIS. pi. II, 6.
7
Rather than MV. OSCA, as Heiss, p. 157 (re- Sparso et Caeciliano; Composto et Marullo.
1 6

constructed in this way on his pi. X I I I , 8) and Hill, E.g. Hill, pi. X X V H , 1 (BM).
1 7

p. 141. 18
E.g. the Caristanii at Pisidian Antioch:
Varro, De Lingua Latina, 143; Kornemann, Ramsay, Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939),
PW. xvi, 570. p. 207.
9 Hiibner, CIL. 11, p. 407; cf. Pliny, NH. in, 24, 9 Vives iv, p. 51. 15.
X

by implication. CIL. 11, 2649.

2 0

1 0
Cf. Perin, Lexicon Totius Latinitatis, in, p. 873. Gatti, Noti^ie degli Scavi, 1893, p. 30.
2 1

" Cf. Zobel de Zangroniz, MNE. v, 1880, p. 129: 2a

CIL. xiv, 1591. But these might all be Spanish
autincidn honorifica extraordinaria. immigrants to Italy.
168 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
1
and I g u v i u m and an Aelius Proculus from Tarquinii;* perhaps they were con-
nected w i t h the forebears o f Hadrian, who migrated from Hadria to Italica i n the
3 4
Scipionic age. Baeticans often moved to Tarraconensis. The four moneyers who sign
5
with their cognomina were probably all Spaniards: Caecilianus is a common name i n
6
Spain, and the otherwise unknown name Compostus is manifestly o f native origin.
7 8
Epigraphic records suggest that Marullus was a Spaniard from Baetica; aMarullus
0
was Seneca's teacher. A wealthy Sparsus was among the friends o f the poet from
10
Bilbilis, Martial, and the same name is found on inscriptions from this province."
I n the same category is municipium Turiaso." The earliest coins o f this city are asses
w i t h T V R I A S O accompanying an equestrian figure o f Augustus (instead o f a head)
13 14
to r i g h t or l e f t ; on the reverse is a laureate female head to right, inscribed SILBIS
(Pi. V , 22). H i l l compares the head w i t h the Tiberian lustitia and Solus Augusta;
1 5

but there is a much greater resemblance, i n general appearance and execution, to denarii
w i t h C A E S A R D I V I F., struck i n the thirties B . C . (pp. 50 f. n . 14). These asses are
16

of a distinctly-earlier fabric and style than the late Augustan issues o f Turiaso, and are
clearly not far from contemporary w i t h the foundation-coinages o f Osca and Calagur-
ris. A further point o f resemblance to coinages o f this date is provided b y the occur-
rence o f the city's secondary appellation Silbis,^ which presents a close parallel to
Ilercavonia at Dertosa and Nassica at Calagurris. The initial issues o f those t w o cities
and o f Osca inaugurate i n each case not only the municipal mint but the municipium
itself—and are all to be attributed to the same period, c. 31-28 B.C. Since the issue o f
Turiaso has exactly similar characteristics, i t too must be considered a foundation-
coinage o f that time. The reverse type o f a horseman is very closely paralleled on the
Oscan foundation-coin, and suggests that the two issues, exactly similar i n module as
they are, were part o f the same plan: the foundation o f Turiaso is therefore to be
ascribed to T . Statilius Taurus (29-28)—probably again as adsignator to the princeps—
rather than to C. Calvisius Sabinus (31-29).
Turiaso misses out the usual stage o f portraiture f r o m ' Spanish' models, and does not
18
coin again until near the end o f Augustus's lifetime, when i t issues a series w i t h his
1
CIL. xi, 5840. curator of Judaea of the same name under Caligula,
* Ibid. 3396. vide PIR. 11, 351. 262.
3
Spartian, Vita Hadriani, 1, 7; cf. Syme, Martial X I I , 57.
1 0
" CIL. 11, 2648, 4198.
Historische Zeitschrift, 1938, p. 558. Pliny, NH. 111, 24; cf. CIL. n, p. 405.
1 2

4
Cf. West, Imperial Roman Spain, The Objects «3 Vienna (Hill, pi. X X X I I , 5).
of Trade, p. 80. BM (ibid. 6).
1 4
P. 166. 1 5

5 Cf. CIL. 11, index cognominum, s.v. E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 612, etc.
1 6

6
Cf. Thes. Ling. Lat., Onom. 1, s.v. Cf. Zobel de Zangroniz, MNE. v, 1880, p. 129.
1 7

7
Cf. Carpullus in Gaul, CIL. XIII, 5430; Scharf, Hill, pp. 165 f., points out that this is not equivalent
Neue Deutsche Forschungen, CLXXXV, 1938, p. 40. to the Iberian name for Turiaso, and conjectures
8
CIL. 11, 1995, 2144, 2150. For the name, vide that Silbis was a local goddess.
Schulze, p. 461. An earlier coin cited by Morelli, Thesaurus,
1 8

9 Seneca, Controversiae, 1, praef. etc For a. pro- pi. X X X V H , 26, is probably false; cf. Hill, p. 165.
 T H E R O M A N MUNICIPIA 169
1
laureate head and a titulature including P(ater) P(atriae). Some o f these coins have on
2
the reverse a distinctive head o f Livia, which anticipates her common appearance
under Tiberius. The rest are signed by three pairs o f duoviri* (not quattuorviri)*: at
this town, as elsewhere, i t was not until the principate o f Tiberius that the aediles took
over the coinage o f semisses.* The dominant clan at Turiaso seems to have been the
Caecilii, who are represented on three o f the seven recorded Augustan and Tiberian
6 7
colleges. A certain D . Caecilius Severus was residing i n Rome at about this period;
the present M . Severus was perhaps related to a M . Caecilius who was duovir at
Celsa (p. 212), but the name is not uncommon i n Spain. A large number o f Ser(r)ani9
8

also i n the peninsula probably bears witness to an extensive patrocinium o f the gens
10 11
Atilia. The duovir L . Fenestella may well be the historian, whose wife was certainly
Spanish; a C. Valerius Fen. is found at Caesaraugusta (p. 218). A further Aquinus
12

coined at Pella at about this time (p. 283).

We now have five cities whose constitutiones can, w i t h great probability, be divided
between C. Calvisius Sabinus and T . Statilius Taurus. The foundation-policy which the
princeps carried out by these intermediaries is comparable i n extent to the commission
which had earned Q. Hortensius the title o f praefectus coloniis deducendis (p. 33).
Calvisius and Statilius are not praefecti municipiis constituendis, since the title of governor
now comprehended such activities. But the former o f them is at least constitutor by the
right o f his own imperium, like a contemporary founder at Zama Regia (p. 184): they
are the last o f their kind, since already i n 28 the princeps had vested such powers i n his
own hands (p. 293), and Statilius, like A p . Pulcher pro cos. at Apamea (p. 255), is merely
his adsignator. The change was already foreshadowed by the wide powers and high
prestige o f Calvisius's adsignator at Saguntum, who stole much o f the governor's
limelight (p. 163). But Calvisius too was a particularly staunch party-man w i t h a 13

14
brain which Cicero had respected: he and the formidable Lucanian Statilius (a man
with a private bodyguard^) were spear-points o f the new order, typical instruments for
the policy o f Romanisation w i t h which they have been identified. Probably, so soon
after Actium, there were allotments to veterans at his five foundations, as at other
municipia (pp. 155, 324); but the persistence o f this status i n each case suggests that the
1
Paris: Hill, p. 166. 7. 5 Ibid. p. 167, cf. pi. X X X I V , 3-5.
* Cf. Hill, I.e.,/race Delgado in, p. 142. 6
Under Tiberius: C. Caec. Sere., L . Caec. Aquin.
3
The coins of municipia will be seen to provide (Vives iv, pp. 95. 25, 94. 24).
ample evidence that the statement by Manutius, ap. 7
CIL. vi, 9864.
C i c pro Sest. 8 (accepted by Rudolph, Stadt und 8
Cf. Thes. Ling. Lat., Onomasticon, 1, p. 13.
Stoat im romischen Italien, p. 87), that these cities 9 CIL. 11, index cognominum, s.v.
always possessed quattuorviri is totally false; cf. For this, vide PW. n, 2094 f.
1 0

Mantey, De gradu et statu quaestorum, etc., Diss. 1 1

Cf. Hill, l.c.
Halle, 1882, pp. 11, 25, 32; Jullian, TP. p. 32; and 1 2
Cf. Wissowa, PW. vi, 2177.
pp.i77>i9of->i95 ->20o,324;cf.pp.226n.7,248n.7.
ff 1 3
Cf. Plut. Ant. 58-59 (but vide Miinzer, PW.
4
L . Mario, L . Novio; L . Feneste., L . Serano; 111, 1412).
M. Caecil. Severo, C . Val. Aquino. 1 4
Fam. x, 26. 3. l
* Cf. Syme, RR. p. 372.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
emphasis was rather on loyal Spaniards. I t is significant that the promoted cities are
distributed throughout the province: Calagurris and Turiaso are both i n the Ebro
Valley, but Osca, Saguntum and Dertosa represent different peoples and regions.
No doubt the benefaction was a reward for Spain's share i n the coniuratio o f
32 B . C . : i t is closely connected with a contemporary foundation-scheme on a large
1

2
scale i n Italy.
3
The fourth mwticipium whose coinage develops i n a similar way is Bilbilis. Here,
however, although Bilbilis appears i n Pliny as a municipiumf the commencement is
later: Bilbilis was called Augusta^ and its initial issue, inscribed B I L B I L I [ S ] - I T A L I C A ,
portrays the princeps i n the manner introduced by t h e ' Caesaraugusta' class not before
6
25 B . C . A variant stylises the head i n an archaising native manner (Pi. V , ic>).7 I n
other respects this issue resembles the rest o f the Tarraconensian inaugural coinages:
its type and legend are similar, and the town's secondary name again exceptionally
8
appears. The analogy is too close for this to be considered anything but a foundation-
issue like the rest. Theconstitutor was Augustus himself, who—until a few delegations
to his grandsons (p. 259)—was officially the founder o f all new cities after 27 B . C . The
most likely occasion for the establishment o f Bilbilis is provided by his visit to Spain i n
15-14, i n which other cities also were promoted to Roman status.* The adsignator was
no doubt the legatus Augusti o f Tarraconensis.
The foundation-issue is soon followed by others, w i t h the ethnic B I L B I L I S , and
10
Augustus's name as D I V I F. and P A T E R P A T R I A E . Then, as at Turiaso at about
the same date, a duoviral coinage commences: under Augustus two colleges coin with
the ethnic M V . A V G V S T A B I L B I L I S . " One o f the moneyers, L . Sempronius Rutilus,
takes his names from a Caesarian soldier who held an ephemeral governorship of
Asia (p. 238); the presence o f a second Sempronius here suggests that the family
possessed an important clientela at Bilbilis. The latter honours the princeps' heir by his
12 13
unusual cognomen Tiberi(anus). Other Calidi are found i n the province, but not, as
here, w i t h the gentile name o f Cornelius.
Bilbilis was not the only municipium founded during Augustus's visit to Spain. The
same is clearly true o f Herda. This town restricted itself to a single issue—with
1 4
[ M V N . ] I L E R D A and w o l f (Pi. V , 21)—which, by the analogy o f equally isolated
mintages elsewhere, could scarcely be anything but a jubilee- or, more probably,
foundation-coinage. I t is therefore significant that the portrait-model—like the legend

1
RG. 25. * See pp. 284 f., 306. 9 Cf. Dio L I V , 23. 7, 25. 1.
3
van Nostrand, ES. 111, p. 204. Hiibner, MLI. p. 79; Delgado in, p. 34;
1 0

4
NH. in, 24. 5 CIL. ii, p. 410. Vives iv, p. 55. 10 ff.; Sutherland, RIS. pi. n, 5.
6
BMC. Imp. Aug. 321, etc. 7 BM. 1 1
L . Cor. Calido, L . Semp. Rutilo; M. Serap.
8
It appears, in the lack of further evidence, rash Tiberi., L . Lici. Varo. *
to deny, with Hiibner {CIL. 11, I.e. ), that Italica
4 1 2
Cf. CIL. x, 3728, 8072.
denotes what was later called bus italkum—probably E.g. CIL. 11, 2817 (Valerius),
1 3

a regular concomitant of civitas at this time (p. 315). BM; Hu. 111, p. 650. 1; Hill, p. 72.
1 4
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 171
1
IMP. A V G V S T . D I V I F. —is exceptional on local issues: i t is derived from Roman
denarii o f c. 16 B.C.* The assumption o f a constitutio at this date accords w i t h the
3
appearance o f the municipium i n Pliny's list, and its lack o f the Julian cognomen. So
Augustus, during his visit, may have varied his foundation-policy by the establishment
of at least two municipia as well as colonies (p. 215).
The Tarraconensian municipia, like the rest, invariably inaugurate their mints w i t h a
foundation-coinage: but unlike most cities o f the same status elsewhere i n the West,
none except Dertosa and Ilerda restricts its production to this single issue. The
economic part played by their mintages w i l l be reviewed elsewhere (p. 297). Another
topic which must be left for later discussion is the comparative infrequency w i t h which
many of the municipia, as opposed to the colonies, place the princeps' name and head on
their coins (p. 325). I n the Farther province this distinction is again evident.

3. H I S P A N I A B A E T I C A : Gades, Italica
4
Although Gades obtained the full Roman civitas from Julius, its later title was not
municipium Iulium Augustum, but municipium Augustum'J Pliny curiously describes i t
6
as oppidum civium Romanorum qui appellantur Augustani urbe Iulia Gaditana. I n
7 8
dealing with other towns, Kornemann and Sherwin-White point out that, at the time
of the Agrippan statistics, there still existed various categories o f oppida civium
Romanorum—enfranchised praefecturae, for a etc.—which did not possess the full
organisation o f municipia, although they might be classed w i t h these and usurp their
title. The titulature o f Gades indicates that i t belonged to one o f these classes until it
0
obtained full municipal rank from Augustus —a conclusion confirmed by Sherwin-
10
White's note that the princeps was responsible for their assimilation i n Baetica.
11
The date o f the transformation can be determined from an exceptional series o f
very large bronze pieces i n honour o f Agrippa. His portrait appears, inscribed
A G R I P P A (PL V , 29): on the reverse is M V N I C I P I P A T R O N V S , " M V N I C I P I
13 14
PARENS, M V N I C I P I P A T R O N V S P A R E N S . Others w i t h the last o f these
15 16
legends or M . A G R I P P A COS. I I I . M V N I C I P I P A R E N S have the head of Gaditan
17
Hercules; also w i t h the latter inscription is a type o f Agrippa seated i n a curule chair.
A l l have the naval device o f an acrostolium: the attribution to Gades o f these and the

1
Misread by Cohen, Description historique des Pp. 87 n. 1, 141 f.
8

monnaies frappies sous Vempire romain, Auguste, 708. 9 van Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916, p. 116,
2
E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 88, etc. suggests a refoundation. P. 171.
1 0

3
NH. in, 24. 11
For the principle involved in re-establishing
4
Dio X L I , 24. 1; Livy, Epit. cxi; cf. Horn, Roman communities see below, p. 265.
Foederati, Diss. Frankfurt, 1930, p. 44. " Vives in, p. 11. 35. Ibid. 36; cf. 41.
1 3

5
CIL. 11, p. 229. 6
NH. iv, 119. Ibid. 39.
1 4
Ibid. p. 11. 26.
1 5
Ibid. 25. 27.
1 6

7
PW. xvi, 597; cf. Taberner, QAS. XVIII, 1939, Ibid. p. 12. 42; Madrid (del Rivero, Cat.
1 7

p. 17. pi. X I , 2).

172 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
1 2
other bronze coins here described is certain because o f style, provenance, and type.
The Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae and the coins o f Uselis (p. 151) have illustrated the
frequent identity o f municipal patroni w i t h constitutores\ and the assumption that
3
Agrippa was a founder o f the present municipium is corroborated by the use o f the
words parens and pater, which, w i t h or without the addition of patriae, were regularly
and readily substituted by the Romans for creator, KTicrrns, conditor (p. 319). These
coins, then, probably belong to the category of foundation-issues, whose unrecognised
extent and importance w i l l be seen throughout the present survey. However, no early
activity of Agrippa i n Spain can warrant the supposition that he was the Julian founder.
Moreover, some o f the coins entitle him COS. I l l , establishing a terminus post quern o f
4
27 B . C . ; and the homogeneous appearance of the whole group i n his honour precludes
extension over more than a very short time. N o w Agrippa was proconsul o f Spain i n
19 B . C ; 5 the attribution to this date of his constitutio of municipium Gades accords w i t h
Sherwin-White's conclusion that the process o f eliminating lesser oppida civium
Romanorum was terminated i n Baetica within the same decade.
The mint o f Gades struck a few more commemorative pieces on the same large
6 7
module—bronze sestertii o f c. 630 grains and dupondii o f c. 319 grains. These are all
8
somewhat later than the inauguratory issue. Some'honour T I . C L A V D I V S [ N E R O ] ,
referring to his pontificate by a simpulum:? these can scarcely be earlier than his
1 0
praetorship i n 16 B . C . A close correspondence w i t h these coins i n style and type
contradicts the general assumption of a much earlier date for a similar series celebrating
by name BALBVS P O N T . " The unusual numismatic recognition o f the Gaditan L .
Cornelius Balbus is well warranted b y his distinction o f being the first provincial to
12
reach the consulship. These coins were struck in his honour or at his expense between
c. 19 and c. 13 B . C . Some equally rare pieces honour the princeps as A V G V S T V S
1 3

D [ I V I ] F . : their upper limit is fixed by the use of a ' Patricia' portrait-model, and b y the
14
appearance o f Caius and Lucius —who do not occur on Spanish inscriptions until

1
E.g. Atauri, MJSEA. (Tr. en. 1919, n), p. 5. 7
BM(2).
2
But a variant quoted by Florez (MedaUas de 8
Vives in, p. 11. 28, 29, p. 12. 43; Madrid (del
las colonias, etc., pi. X X V I , 7; cf. Delgado 11, p. 67. Rivero, Cat. pi. XII, 4).
109) with MVNICI. GA. cannot be confirmed. 9 Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cvi; CIL. vi,
3
Cf. perhaps his other patrocinia, e.g. CIL. ix, 385, 30751.
262, 4677, Inscr. Reg. Neap. 3938. 10
CIL. 11, 6080.
4 Cf. Dio LIII, init. 11
Vives in, p. 10.15 ff.; Madrid (del Rivero, Cat.
5 Cf. Syme, CAH. x, p. 344. pi. XI, 1).
12
PIR. 11, 310. 13315 Sherwin-White, p. 183.
2
6
BM (average of three well struck). Since no
larger bronze denomination than the sestertius is 13
Vide Dio LIV, 25. 2 for his last known public
known at this time, the existence of these large appearance.
pieces confirms the general (but unproved) assump- x
* Madrid (del Rivero, Cat. pi. XII, 3); Caballero
tion that the common Spanish coin of c. 160-200 Infante coll. The correct reading is A V G V S T V S
grains is an or and not a dupondius. These, then, are D ( m ) ¥(ilius) (cf. Delgado 11, p. 65.97), not D . D .
sestertii. (Vives, l.c. 34) or D . B. (PIR. 11, p. 310).
2
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 173
1
c. 6 B.C. Other types w i t h the same portraits show, on the reverse, the head* or
3
temple o f Gaditan Hercules. O f about the same date is a piece on which the princeps is
4
described as P O N T I F E X M A X I M V S .
This unusually comprehensive series o f commemorative coins is spread over the
first two decades o f the existence o f the Augustan municipium. I t is noteworthy that
all o f them are o f denominations higher than the unit. This is significant i n view o f the
existence o f a much greater bulk o f currency w i t h the head o f Hercules, two tunnies,
and neo-Punic ethnic o f Gades.5 N o t only can many o f these pieces, on grounds o f
style, be scarcely, i f at all, earlier than the Latin issues, but their weight (c. 160 grains)
6
is precisely half that o f the Latin dupondii. The coinage o f Lipara and Tingis (where the
same Punic w o r d for civitas appears), and inscriptions from Sicily, show that municipal
status did not yet prevent the official retention o f the native language (pp. 195,178):
in any case the latest asses o f Gades cannot be earlier than the grant o f civitas by
Julius, and stylistic analogies suggest that they were contemporary w i t h , or even later
than, the commemorative issues. Such 'autonomy' o f type is characteristic o f the
greater municipia, as is the avoidance o f ' monarchic' portraits (p. 325): theprincepshere
shares the honour w i t h four members o f his house. But the growing significance o f
such portraiture is suggested by the omission o f Balbus's head on the coins which
bear his name.
The only other Roman municipium i n Farther Spain o f which coinage can be identi-
fied is Italica. Reverse legends include GEN(zW) POP(uli) ROM(ani) ( P i . V , 26)7—
8 0
an invention o f the late R e p u b l i c — M V N I C . I T A L I C . , and R O M A , w i t h the type
10
of an armed warrior. These have portraits imitating respectively the Emeritan,"
12
* Patricia', and Roman denarii, the last o f c. 18 B.C.: no earlier models appear. When i t
is recollected that other municipal mints, probably without exception, begin their coin-
age w i t h a foundation-issue, there is a strong presumption that a part o f the series o f
Italica fulfils the same function. This is confirmed b y the absence o f evidence for a
13
municipium before this coinage, though a vicus civium Romanorum had existed from c.
14
205 B.C. I t is far more probable that the constitutio took place during Augustus's visit
to Spain i n 15-14, at a time when the portrait-models here used were fashionable, and
when other Spanish municipia, such as Bilbilis and Ilerda, are likely to have been
established (pp. 170, I 7 i ) . 5 As at other towns founded after 27 (p. 293), Augustus
x

1
Sutherland,/ft?. 1934, pp. 31 ff. 3 Hiibner, CIL. 11, p. 146, points out, pace
J

* Vives, L c 21 ff. 3 Ibid. 31. Kubitscjiek, Imp. p. 177, Schulten, PW. ix, 2284,
4
Heiss, p. 350. 39. that the word municeps in Bell. Alex. 52. 4 merely
5
Vives, L c pp. 9f. means 'townsman*—as commonly elsewhere. Cf.
6
BM (average of seven). 7 Vives iv, p. 2. Sutherland, RIS. p. 237 n. 30.
Cf. Rink, Die bildlichen Darstellungen des Cf. Mommsen, ap. CIL. n, 1119.
1 4

romischen Genius, Diss. Giessen, 1933, pp. 41 ff. *5 van Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916, p. 114,
9
Vives iv, p. 126. Ibid. 1.
1 0
considers that the foundation was Roman rather
" E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 277 ff. than Latin. Hiibner, La Arqueobgia de Espana,
* Ibid. 45, 47. p. curiously omits mention of this stage.
I 7 7 >
174 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
himself was the constitutor—a conclusion entirely i n accordance w i t h the formula
PER(missu) AVG(usti) on some o f these coins. His auctoritas—to which this formula
refers (p. 130)—was sufficient not only to found municipia i n 'senatorial' provinces,
but to sanction their coinage for as long as was desirable; i t was only to governors o f
exceptional dignity, a consular legatus o f Syria (p. 260) and a proconsul o f Africa
(p. 232), that he transferred the latter prerogative.
The psychological progress o f the principate—for which, i n Spain, Augustus's
1
travels did more than constitutional changes at Rome —is clearly to be seen from the
issues o f Italica. The types bear witness to the intense Romanisation o f the province:*
even the smallest coins, which omit verbal allusion to Rome, never forgo the Roman
3 4
types, such as the w o l f and twins, cornucopiae and globe, and, besides the princeps'
head, his natal capricorn.5 These representations, occurring even on the foundation-
coinage, are i n the strongest contrast to the strictly local references on inauguratory
coinages o f the early twenties. They show that the distinction between municipia and
colonies was vanishing (p. 324), and that propaganda for the new regime had made great
headway i n the intervening period. However, the bronze unit remains at the earlier
6
Spanish figure o f c. 200 grains, which is higher than the weight o f official copper asses.

4. P A T R O C I N I U M B O C C H I : Lix,Tingis
On the other side o f the Mediterranean is L i x : o f this city only a colonisation by
7
Claudius is recorded, but its coins o f an earlier period already have distinguishing
features o f Roman municipia. They have the Punic w o r d for township found also at
8
municipia Gades and T i n g i s ; secondly, like no town i n Mauretania but Tingis, their
0 1 0
latest coins have partly Latin inscriptions—including the ethnic L I X S or L I X ,
substituted for the earlier neo-Punic ethnic." The later pieces look about contemporary
1 2
w i t h those o f Bocchus I I I . I t therefore appears very likely that L i x obtained promotion
to the rank o f a municipium civium Romanorum either i n 38 B . C . , w i t h Tingis, or when
13
the Mauretanian colonial grants were made i n c. 33-25 B . C . (p. 60), and that the few
bilingual coins celebrate the constitutio. Pliny's earlier source is here superseded, as
14
often, b y later information recording the Claudian colony.
1
Cf. Sutherland,//?^, xxiv, 1934, p. 31; Syme, cf. Broughton, Gsell, etc. At the present period
RR. p. 324. only one example is known—Uzalis, Pliny, NH.
2
Sutherland, l.c. pp. 31 ff. v, 29.
3 Vives, l.c. 3. 4
Ibid. 5. 9 Copenhagen; Muller 11, p. 156. 239.
5 Ibid. 6 (Berlin). Vienna, Copenhagen; Muller, L c 240 f.
1 0

6
221, 195 grains (BM). Muller 11, p. 155.
1 1

7
Pliny, NH. v, 2. 1 2
Cf. chronological observations of Muller in,
8
Hiibner, PW. (2R.), 11, 2028. It appears p. 161 n. 7.
also at the Latin town of Sexi: but Latinitas is Cf. Gsell vm, p. 202; cf. Carcopino, Rev. hist.
1 3

unlikely for a town in Mauretania, since it is ex- CLXII, 1929, p. 91.

ceedingly rare in Africa, Last, CAH. xi, p. 452, E.g. Jones, CERP. pp. 495 f.
1 4
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 175
In view o f a statement o f Pliny concerning colonia Augusti Zulil, believed to be
1 2
Zilis (regum dicioni exempta et iura in Baeticam petere iussa \ i t has generally been
considered that all the Mauretanian citizen communities were attached to the juris-
3
diction of the proconsul o f Farther Spain and, later, Baetica. But i t may be noted that
4
Icosium was attributed to Ilici i n Tarraconensis; and additional qualifications are
invited by the coinage o f Tingis. I n 38 B.C.5—rather than 40 —Bocchus I I I seized6

this town together w i t h the rest o f the dominions o f Bogud (who had invaded Spain);
he was confirmed by Octavian i n his possession o f Bogud's kingdom, and Tingis was
7
given Roman citizenship. Its coins reveal its status to have been municipal: Pliny's
8
attribution to this town o f Colonia Iulia Traducta has been shown to be misplaced.*
Two strange issues are relevant to its position:
(1) neo-Punic inscription interpretable as Bqs Hamamleket (= Bocchus Rex ). 10 11

Head o f Africa to right, w i t h usual elephant-hide head-dress— SOS.

L . " F., D . D . Janiform head, and corn-ear (?) (PL V , 27). 13

(2) R E X B O C C H V S SOS. L . F. (partly blundered and inverted). Bare-headed

bearded portrait to right (Pi. V , 28)—Indecipherable neo-Punic legend. Elephant to
14
right; palm-branch.
Although i t was possible for non-Roman communities to imitate Roman institutions
and have decurions (p. 346), only one peregrine city is known to have struck coins
z 16
with D . D., s and among those of Mauretania Latin was not the language i n use. Nor
17
do these pieces resemble i n style the issues o f Bocchus I I I from Siga; but the w i r y and
linear execution o f the former o f them is precisely that o f coins o f Augustus and
Agrippa struck at municipium Tingis (p. 177). This was, moreover, the only Roman
community ever i n Bocchus's occupation, since after its capture i n 46 Cirta passed at
18 1
once to Sittius. Rex Bocchus Sosi/(ilius) ^ must be a wrong interpretation, since on
(1) Rex Bocchus is written i n the native language, but the rest is not. For the same
reason Bocchus cannot here be merely one o f the honorary duoviri, like Juba and

I
Gsell vm, p. 201, etc. * NH. v, 2. as frequendy on coins of N.W. Africa (cf. p. 478).
3
Gsell, l.c p. 204; cf. Albertini, Les divisions ad- This interpretation is more probable than SOSI
ministratives de VEspagne romaine, p. 41 n. 2, also ¥(ilius\ where the absence of a preceding name
Reid, Broughton, etc would be inexplicable, or SOSI(WJ) ¥(ilius), an un-
4
NH. in, 19; cf. Sutherland, RIS. p. 178. paralleled tide for a local official. L . Sos(s)ii occur
5 Gsell viii, p. 200; cf. Dio XLVIII, 45. 3. in Africa (p. 176 n. 3).
6
Windberg, PW. (iR.), vi, 2517. 1 3
Paris, BM; cf. Judas, Rn. 1856, p. 115; Muller
7
Gsell, I.e.; cf. Dio, l.c 11, p. 100. 15; Charrier, Description des monnaies de
8
NH. v, 1. la Numidie et de la Mauritanie, p. 68. 128.
9
Windberg, l.c; cf. Strabo in, 140; CIL. 11, 1 4
BM; cf. coins published by Muller in, p. 100.
p. 241. 16; Judas, l.c.
1 0
Levy, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlandischen Abdera, Vives 111, p. 12.
15

GesellscAaft, xvm, 1864, pp. 580 f. 1 6

Mulleni, pp. 138 ff. 1 7
Muller in, p. 97.
I I
Berger, Revue d'Assyriologie, 11,1888, p. 44 n.3. 1 8
Gsell VIII, p. 80; cf. Bellum Africum, xxv, 2. 3.
" On both these coins the L is a mere stroke— 1
9 Muller, Charrier, ll.cc
176 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
Ptolomaeus at colonia Carthago Nova (p. 216). Midler's suggestion that the coins are
posthumous is unplausible: w h y should a Roman community honour a dead king i n
this exceptional way? The Punic inscription on (1) eliminates any possibility o f a
governorship o f Mauretania for Sosius; a king could not be mentioned w i t h a governor.
Nor, indeed, was Mauretania even a regular province at this time (p. 61). I t is clear
that the overlord is no other than Bocchus himself.
1
The head and effigy o f Juba I I are later found on city coins o f I o l Caesarea, but the
remarkable feature here is the appearance o f the king's portrait and inscription at a
citizen community: the features o f the Janiform head on (1) are those o f the royal bust
on (2). The t o w n cannot, then, at this time have been i n the jurisdiction o f Baetica
(that is, the proconsulship o f Farther Spain); nor is i t at all likely to have been i n the
same independent condition as the territory o f Cirta: king Bocchus, since he appears on
these coins, must have exercised some form o f suzerainty. I t is possible to define this
w i t h greater precision. I n general, municipia prided themselves on their autonomy;
but there was one occasion i n their existence on which they, like the colonies, admitted
on their coins the portraits o f dignitaries who represented Rome (like M . Atius Balbus
at Uselis [p. 150]), or who even enjoyed semi-princely rank, like P. Sittius at Simitthu (?)
(p. 178). This occasion was the moment o f their foundation, and the vast extent o f such
coinages is summarised elsewhere (p. 290). The present issues could not have been
made more than a few years, at the most, after the establishment o f Tingis: analogies
from elsewhere point decisively to the occasion o f its constitutio. The exceptional
feature is the appearance o f a king's portrait; only a foundation-coinage could bear such
a type without offending the susceptibilities o f Roman citizens, since constitutores
alone were regularly honoured i n this way. Here, too, is an explanation o f the method
by which Rome arranged for this municipium at least to receive a measure o f super-
vision. Constitutores became patroni, to whom the states which they founded were
bound i n the relationship o f a client (p. 151): when the patronus was a king who ruled
the surrounding territory, the potential significance o f this position is clear. I t is not,
however, possible to generalise from this case to those o f later colonial enclaves i n the
territories o f Juba (and Amyntas), since Pliny explicitly states t h a t ' Z u l i l ' and Icosium
were detached from royal rule (p. 175). I t was reasonable that, when the policy
2
suggested b y extensive colonisation i n Mauretania had been reversed, and a king re-
established, the numerous Roman citizens i n the province should be attached to the
jurisdiction o f a Roman official: but at first Tingis had stood alone, and these coins
show a transitional period i n which the king's supervision may have been more than
nominal. Analogies from coloniae Paestum and Rhodus (pp. 286, 243) indicate that
Sosius L . f. was the adsignator who regularly assisted the conditor i n his task. Since the
constitutor was a king, Sosius—whose father may have been a freedman o f the eminent
3
Antonian C. Sosius C. f. —was no doubt i n virtually independent control.
1
Muller in, pp. 105 ff. 2
Gsell vm, p. 224. For L . Sos(s)ii in N.W. Africa vide CIL. vni, 6614,
3
No son of his can be traced (Syme, RR. p. 498). 6619.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 177
The subsequent coinage of the city, which is partly unpublished and has not been
collected, does not illustrate further its external relations, but—in so far as it is de-
cipherable—provides an unusual series of variations of municipal usage. The first
group, whose attribution is certain by analogy with subsequent issues, has a female
head in wreath, and two corn-ears; inscriptions include:
(1) E X D. D.—M? L . A E M L , L. V A L . , Q. F A B . F A . (Pi. V I , i o ) . 1

(2) E X D. D . — C. I V L . A T T I C . 3

(3) ALBIVS 3
The last is shown not to be the same as (2) by the head, which is turned to the left,
while the others face to the right. In each case it is clearly a college of quattuorviri
which is described, in accordance with Republican usage. A second group have the
4

same reverse type—which is also found on neo-Punic coins of the same city —and a 5

bearded head of Baal, with the legends:

(4) A E M . P O L . A E D . — T I N G . , MAJOR., SIMINT. I I V I R (Pi. V I I , i ) . 6

(5) I V L . T I N G . E X D . D . I V V I R I V R . D . — Q . F A B I V S F A B V L L V S , L
IVS S E N E C A . 7
The appearance of Q. Fabius Fabullus on (5) as well as on (1) shows that the whole
series probably only occupies a short period: Fabii Fabulli are common in Spain like 8

other names occurring on African issues, including that of another Tingitan moneyer,
Seneca. The coinage exhibits a process of evolution which is paralleled by less complete
evidence from other municipia. The quattuorviral college breaks up into pairs; 0

(4) represents a transitional stage when the only member of the quattuorviri aedilicia
potestate who is mentioned is the official who, as elsewhere (p. 162), was responsible for
the issue. On (5) the junior pair is already excluded: the others bear their full designa-
tion, quattuorviri iure dicundo, not found on coins of any other municipium. The next 10

step in the development is the alteration of their title to duoviri, whose frequent ap-
pearance on the coins of municipia shows how wrong it is to attempt their limitation to
colonies (p. 169 n. 3).
It may be that this stage is represented by a coin with the head of Augustus and
[ ?] A V G V S . , all in wreath, and on the reverse, with a facing head of Baal,
A. A L L I E N V S P. F. II[VIR??] (Pi. V I , 11). II[II V I R ] is equally possible
11

in the context; but an earlier piece has shown that I V V I R is the form employed at
1
Vatican. 7 Newell, American Journal of Numismatics,
2
Gago, in Delgado 11, p. 356. 19 (Gago coll.). XLVIII, 1914, p. 72.
3
Copenhagen. Groag, PW. vi, 1769 (75).
8

4
Cf. Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im romischen 9 For this tendency vide Sherwin-White, p. 137.
Italien, pp. 87 ff. 5 Muller m, pp. 114 f. At two colonies, Parium and Thapsus (pp. 248,
1 0

6
BM, misread in Hu. in, 675; M. S. 1, 101, etc. 225).
The second duovir s name may possibly be con- 11
Copenhagen; incompletely read by Muller,
nected with the gens Siminia (cf. Schulze, p. 232). Suppl. p. 73. 17 c.
i 8
7 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
Tingis. However, there is no need to assume consistency. CharrierV interpretation
of Allienus as a governor was due to an incomplete reading, and to ignorance o f the
rest o f the series o f municipal magistrates at Tingis. The father o f this Allienus was
probably one o f the extensive familia o f the A. Allienus who had governed Sicily in 48.*
3
There remain three unsigned issues. A small piece has one corn-ear and I V L .
T I N G I . inscribed on a shield; and two asses, w i t h the same reverse type as the coin o f
4
Allienus, have the heads o f Augustus and Agrippa, inscribed A V G V S T V S I V L . T I N .
and M . A G R I P P A I V L . T I N . respectively;* on the reverse, i n neo-Punic characters,
6
are the names o f Baal and o f the town. I t is usual for such imperial types to come at or
near the end o f the 'autonomous' series, and this piece is undoubtedly later than the
7
other municipal coins, or the peregrine issues, o f the city. I f this view is accepted, the
latest issues show a revival o f the neo-Punic language: this may perhaps be explained
by its definite recognition as an official medium, after a period i n which the citizen com-
munities, lacking instructions, had considered it necessary to employ the Latin tongue.

5. P A T R O C I N I U M S I T T I I : Simitthu(?)
A series w i t h the name o f P. Sittius stands i n need o f reinvestigation, which must begin
with a more careful transcription than has hitherto been made. A specimen which is
8 0 10
now lost was thus described by Charrier and Babelon:
(1) P. S I T T I V S VS I I I I V I R male head to r i g h t — D . D I C V R . (sic) head
of Virtus to right (AL 10).
On the only three extant pieces, hitherto wrongly described and restored, the visible
lettering is as follows:
(2) P. S I T T I V S M V NVS I I I I V I R D E C R . D E C V R . D . S. P. male Lead to
r i g h t — H O N O R V I R T V S jugate heads to right o f Honos and Virtus (JES)
(PL V I , 15)."
(3) NVS I I I I V I R male head to right— RETO
12
D . S. P. head o f goddess to right.
(4) CONIANV.S male head to r i g h t — D . C V R - - C R E T
13
head o f Jupiter to right (&<)) (Pi. V I , 16).
L.c. no. 135.
1 7
Muller 11, p. 144. 216 ff.
Cf. Thesaurus Ling. Lat. i, 1688; Klebs, PW.
2 8
The Director informs me that it is no longer
i, 1585. in the Florence collection, where Charrier stated it
Vila coll. (Malaga); cf. Gago, Delgado 11, p. 356.
3
to be.
17* 9
Description des monnaies de la Numidie et de la
Copenhagen; cf. Muller in, p. 146. 231;
4
Mauretanie, p. 26.73.
Charrier, l.c. no. 132. 1 0
Rn. 1889, P- 5°5> - 3- n o

5 BM; cf. Muller m, p. 146. 232; Charrier, l.c. 1 1

Paris: Charrier, l.c. no. 75; Babelon, l.c. no. 1;
no. 133. Recherche des antiquites dans le Nord de VAfrique,
6
One of these pieces is falsely attributed to p. 182.
M. Acilius, pro cos. of Sicily, by Capranesi, Bull. delV 1 2
Paris.
Inst, di corr. arch. 1834, p. 74; cf. 1835, p. 43. 1 3
Paris: Charrier, l.c. no. 75 A; Babelon, l.c. no. 2.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 179
These legends have given rise to a number o f conjectural interpretations and self-
corrections. From (1) only, Muller attempted to read first COQonia) I(ulia)ClR(ta) y
l

2
and then C O I ( = colonia [sic]) CVR(ubis); both interpretations maltreat grievously
3
the actual inscription visible on the coin. Mommsen's C(plonia) l(ulia) C(irta)
4
VYR(tutis) is no better. His alternative D . \(ulio or Iunio etc.) C V R . (a cognomen) is
belied by (2) and (3), which show clearly the usual formula decreto decurionum ( i n -
verted in the latter case). O n (1) there is the same phrase: the substitution o f I for E is
paralleled exactly on a Numidian inscription.5 D . C V R . on (4) cannot be similarly
6
explained: but the use, later common, o f curia for senatusi provides the interpretation
D[e] CVR(iae) [ D E j C R E T f c ) . For D . S. P. on (2), BabelonV conjecture De
8

Senatus Permissu is invalidated by the impossibility o f such a tautology after D E C R .

D E C V R . His other guess, De sententia publica, is unacceptable owing to the over-
10
whelming epigraphic evidence i n favour o f D(*) S(ua) V(ecunia\ or D(e) S(uo)
n
P(osuit\ one or the other o f which these initials universally represent. This makes it
necessary to conclude that the person or persons here described presented the coinage;
the possibility o f a posthumous issue for the famous P. Sittius under Augustus is
therefore excluded.
Charriers comparison o f the coins ( i ) - ( 4 ) leads him to produce a P. Sittius w i t h the
12
unknown cognomen o f Mugonianus, by the analogy o f other N u m i d i a n and Maure-
13
tanian citizens who took the same gentile name. I n so doing he ignores a further coin,
14
found at Constantine, which he himself quotes and illustrates:
(5) [ ? - ] S I T . I I I I I V I R j M V C . D I . * [ D . ] no type—boar to right
1
(JE4).
The obverse legend is not written i n a circle, but i n three straight lines: thus, i n the
first place, I I I I V I R cannot be common to both S I T . and M V C , i f these are considered
to represent separate persons, and secondly, its position destroys the possibility o f
'P. Sittius Mugonianus' as a single name. The latter conclusion is confirmed, i f con-
firmation is necessary, by the presence on (4) (visible on Pi. V I , 16) o f a pellet between
the second V and the final S o f the imagined cognomen: the reading is C O N I A N V . S .
The coin appears to have been cleaned but not tooled; the spacing and the dot are
secure pieces o f evidence to support the testimony o f (5). I t is therefore clear that,
on this, M V C . must represent either the name o f a city or an explanatory addition to
the quattuorviral title. The former possibility is excluded by the absence o f a suitable
MV(nicipium) C or M(unicipium) V C
1
in, p. 65. Suppl. p. 73.
2
either this or the next are v, 912, 1830, 3351, 4376,
3
Gesammelte Schriften, v, p. 476. 4
Ibid. 6478, 7510, etc.
5 CIL. vm, add. 10525 (Curubis). 1 1
E.g. vm, 271, 1548, 2637; ? xiv, 3448, etc.
6
Kubler, PW. iv, 2319. 1 2
E.g. ibid, vm, 717, etc.
7
Cf. CIL. vm, 1828, etc. 1 3
E.g. ibid. 9259 (Icosium), etc.
For similar divergencies of formula at a single 1 4
P. 26, no. 74; id. Recueil de la Soc. arch, du
city, see p. 263. 9 R , 1889, p. 502.
n dip. de Constantine, XXX, 1895, pp. 310 f.
10
E.g. CIL. vm, 4636; cf. 1648, xiv, 3540, etc.; *5 Cf. (1) above.
180 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
Now that the imaginary cognomen 'Mugonianus' is eliminated, the plain legend P.
S I T T I V S and the distinctive portrait which is certainly not that o f Julius or Octavian
1
—as even Muller, who endeavours to assign it to one of them, must confess—combine
to indicate that i t is the well-known adventurer himself who is portrayed, and who, as
quattuorvir, strikes the coin himself D(e) S(ua) P(ecunia). After the successful termina-
tion o f hostilities against the Pompeians, and the establishment of the curious territorial
2
unit under his rule, one o f the latest roles assigned to Sittius was that o f city-founder.
Many local coinages exist i n honour of colonial deductores (p. 290): others have shown
the functions o f Atius Balbus and C. Calvisius Sabinus as founders o f municipia. I t
has been pointed out that the founder o f a Republican municipium is Municipii conditor
or constitutor (p. 160). Here, then, is a very likely explanation o f MV. C. on (5), as
of MV. CON. on (1H4).
It remains to interpret the last letters o f the exploded cognomen o f Sittius. These,
I A N V . S — n o w seen to be one o f those combinations o f initials so dear to the Romans
and so tempting for conjecture—are inapplicable to Sittius's most famous foundation,
3
Cirta, even i f (as is very improbable) i t was first enfranchised as a municipium. But i n
4
Africa there were other Julian foundations, which Julius is unlikely to have been able
to superintend i n person: some o f these were outside the old province. Far the most
influential Roman citizen i n the neighbourhood, until his assassination i n 44,5 was P.
Sittius. Although most o f the known Julian foundations i n Africa were colonial, one,
6
Simitthu, clearly did not receive that dignity until Augustus. Kubitschek? and
8
Broughton logically assume from its style, Colonia Iulia Augusta Numidica? that i t
had first been a Julian municipium. Not only was Simitthu outside Africa Vetus—and
within the range o f Sittius's activity—but its unique epithet Numidica and the initial
of its ethnic perfectly explain N V . S on these coins. Moreover, Simitthu sprang into
10
particular importance at this time owing to the export o f its marble.
There is, also, a very probable interpretation for the remaining letters I . A . Simitthu
is likely to have been founded, not i n the dictator's lifetime, but, like so many other
11 12
cities, by a Lex Antonia i n the months immediately after his death. N o w several
Julian foundations carried out by Antony appear to have been called Iulia Antonia
13
until Augustus removed the latter epithet: Simitthu may well, owing to the circum-
SuppL p. 73.
1
Cf. Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, p. 9.
1 1

Cf. Appian, BC. iv, 54, etc.

2
Cf. von Premerstein, Sav.Z. XLIII, 1922, p. 117
1 2

Cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, v, p. 476; n. 1.

3

Wilmanns,C/Z.vin,p.6i8;Kubitschek,/m/>.p. 141. Cf. Mommsen, Hermes, xvm, 1883, p. 188;

1 3

Cf. Carcopino, Rev. hist, CLXII, 1929, p. 91.

4
Kornemann, p. 563; Lange, De Legibus Antoniis,
5 Cic. Att. xv, 17. 1. 6
Kornemann, 298. etc., Diss. Leipzig, 1871 (11), p. 11 ff.; e.g. Dyme
7 Imp. p. 154; cf. Pliny, NH. v, 29. (p. 264), Pisaurum (Plut. Ant. 60, pace Pais, Museo
P. 53 n. 1; cf. Haywood, ES. IV, p. 105.
8
italiano di antichita classica, I, 1885, p. 43). Cf. also
9 CIL. vm, 14712; cf. 14559. C . J »us Antonius, duovir at Cnossus (p. 263), and
u

10
Cf. Haywood, ES. iv, pp. 53; cf. p. 24, used at Iullus Antonius, the son of Antony (PIR . 1,153.
2

Rome as early as 78 B.C. (Pliny, NH. xxxvi, 49). 800). See p. 302.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 181
1
stances o f its foundation, provide another example o f the conjunction. The true
interpretation o f M V C O N I A N V S w i l l , according to this theory, be MY(nicipi)
Constitutor) l(ulii) A(ntonii) NV(midici) S(imittkensium). Thus the coins, whose
responsible authority has been shown to be P. Sittius, can be ascribed to the last few
months o f his life, i n 44 B.C.: he struck them, at his own expense—and i n one case
2
portraying his tutelary deities Honos and Virtus —as founder and honorary quattuorvir
of municipium Iulium Simitthu. He is a local magistrate like other founders at Sagun-
tum, Zama Regia and Paestum (pp. 160,183,286): he is, nevertheless, a sort o f dynast—
like another founder, Bocchus at Tingis (p. 176). W i t h the exception o f that ruler, all
founders whom cities outside Italy commemorate on their coinage were also governors
of their provinces. I t is therefore probable that, like Bocchus, Sittius exercised some
form o f supervision over Simitthu: he could scarcely have founded a municipium
3
within the jurisdiction o f the proconsul o f Africa Nova. There are no reasons to
believe that Sittius's sphere o f government, which included Cirta and its three sub-
4
sidiary colonies, was limited to these: Appian, who provides the evidence, emphasises
the importance o f his share—fiAccpe Trocpcc Kcciaccpos TT\V Maaccvdaaou yfjv, ovx
5
crrraaccv cVXAa TO K p c c T i c n o v canrfjs. The coins suggest that he controlled the north
coast, and a strip o f hinterland, at least as far as Simitthu, and thus to the borders o f
Africa Vetus. Sittiani abound i n the inscriptions o f the region. Furthermore, the new
6
province o f Africa Nova is known to have been centred elsewhere: Carcopino and
7 8
Gsell assign the headquarters o f the proconsul to Zama Regia—a Julian municipium
(p. 183)—or Thugga.9 Appian adds: [TT^V yfjv] TOIS Crrr' OCOTOV &v8p&cnv £TTi8ieTAsv.
Emporiae and Uselis have shown that constitutio was sometimes accompanied by
land-allotment (pp. 155,153); this was evidently the case at Simitthu, as elsewhere i n
10
Africa and especially i n the Bagradas valley, whose riches encouraged immigration."
1
Iussu Antonii is unlikely, since the full formula 7
Whose identity is unknown: cf. Sternkopf,
for posthumous Julian foundations is in a different Hermes, 1912, p. 379. 8
L.c. p. 166 n. 1.
form: iussu C. Caesaris dictatoris imperatoris et lege If the provincia nova did not extend to the north
9

Antonia (Lex Coloniae Genetivae, ch. 104). Iulicoast, it probably stretched south as far as the
auctoritate or arbitratu is not particularly probable,Tripolitana. This was a period when provinces—
since it was only as divus Iulius that the dictator's except the highly populated Africa Vetus and Sicily
gentile name regularly supplanted the cognomen. In —were large; and the military purpose of Africa
view of his peculiar use of the title Imperator Nova demanded the inclusion of the southern area.
(p. 409), l(mperatoris) A(uctoritate) or K(rbitratu) This province did not survive the early part of this
is perhaps just possible, but not plausible. period.
2
PIR.* 1, 153. 800. 1 0
Cf. Frank, CR. XL, 1926, pp. 15 f.; Broughton,
3
On the province cf. Romanelli, Atti del III pp. 78 ff.; Sherwin-White, p. 172; Haywood, ES.
Congresso di studi romani (1933), I, p. 556. iv, p. 105, modifying Rostovtzeff, SEH. pp. 33 ff.,
4
Gsell vm, p. 184. and Heitland who opposed him in JRS. vm, 1918,
5
iv, 54. pp. 34 ff.
Rev. hist. 1929, p. 90. 11
Haywood, l.c. pp. 100 f.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA

6. AFRICA: Zama Regia, Thuburnica (?), Zitha

No issues by municipia in provincia Africa during this period have been rightly recog-
1
nised. But this deficiency is due, not to any ancient ban on issues by municipia i n
Africa, but to modern errors: besides Simitthu, it is possible to identify no less than
three cities o f this category as the producers o f misread and neglected coinages.
2
A specimen misread by E. Babelon can be restored as follows from the second extant
3
example:
CAESAR AVGVS[TVS4] head o f Augustus to right (Pi. V I , 12).
6
A . A M B A T V S 5 P R A E F . I T E R . , I V L I A SAMA R E . slightly bearded head to
7
right, w i t h distinctive features that clearly indicate a portrait (Pi. V I , 13).
In the ethnic, which has not been previously read, the S is perfectly clear: what looks
at first sight like an I following i t is merely part o f an exaggerated twirl on its upper
section. A similar ligature o f RE. is found on a countermark (p. 117). The letter Z did
not reappear i n the Latin alphabet until Cicero's time, and then only for the transcrip-
tion o f a few Greek names: otherwise initial Z3 was still represented, as formerly, b y
8

10
S.9 We have then the name o f one o f the two cities o f Zama: and RE. is explained
by the fact that one o f these, Zama Regia, did not abandon its royal epithet even as
11
a colony under Hadrian.
Confirmation o f this attribution is obtained, i n an unusual way, from a second piece
12 13
of smaller module. This is wrongly described by E. Babelon as follows: V A G A X A
E T T I R O A E D . female (?) head to right, two corn-ears—M. B A T V S P R A E F . head
of Bacchus to right. The correct description seems to be this:
V A G A X . A . T E . T I R O A E D . (the stop between X and A being clearly visible)
young male head to right, two corn-ears.
• -MBATVS PRAEF young male head to right (Pi. V I , 14).
1
A small coin of Utica with the head of Livia 6
See Monogram 6.
(Naples: Muller 11, p. 159. 344) should be classed on 7 Cf. Babelon, l.c.
grounds of type and style among the issues of the 8
Cf. Kent, Sounds of Latin, ch. 24; Lewis and
reign of Tiberius. It is one of the numismatic Short, s.v. Z.
curiosities of the period that this important muni- 9 Cf. Perin, Lexicon Totius Latinitatis, I I I ,
cipium (since 36 B.C.) (Dio XLIX, 16; cf. Broughton, p. 1049.
p. 77; Carcopino, Bulletin de la Sociiti nationale des Mommsen, Hermes, xx, 1885, p. 144.
1 0

Antiquaires de France, 1931, p. 115) appears to coin CIL. vi, 1686; vm, p. 211, Tab. Peut. The
1 1

only after his accession. town is variously identified with Sra Uartan
2
Rn. 1889, p. 508. 1; Paris. (Partsch, Africae veteris itineraria, p. 67), Sebar Biar
3
BM ('uncertain'). (Veith, Antike Schlachtfelder, pp. 622 ff.), and Jama
4
Paris specimen. (Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, m, p. 539).
5 Correcting Mowat, Bulletin ipigraphique, vi, 1 2
Paris.
1886, p. 40 (Abbatus, etc.). Rn. 1889, p. 508. 2.
1 3
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 183
The latter bust may or may not represent Bacchus, but the head on the obverse can be
assigned, from the legend V A G A X , to the god who is described on third-century
1 2
inscriptions as Bacax. There are many African examples o f the use o f V for B , and the
3
converse tendency was later frequent. This and the other consonantal change found
4
here—from G to C—are both illustrated by the Mauretanian place-name Bagaza.
But the centre o f the cult o f Bacax was M t . Thaya, near Aquae Thibilitanae, in
5
Numidia: no town was geographically better suited to do him honour than Zama
Regia.
6
The appearance o f Zama Regia as libera i n Pliny's list causes no difficulty, since his
30 (?) 'free* cities include at least 4 which were certainly Julian coloniae or municipia,
a class o f community on which his information was peculiarly scrappy (p. 226). His
list is rendered especially untrustworthy by his frequent description o f these cities
merely as liberae, since he understood libertas to be a characteristic o f Roman com-
munities (p. 225). The promotion o f Zama Regia to civitas is not unlikely, since i t had
perhaps been the capital o f Julius's temporary province Africa Nova (p. 181) (now
7
united to the old province). Even i f this city had been destroyed i n the civil wars,
Thaena and Achulla, whose fate was similar, already both coin under Augustus
(pp. 346, 230), the latter as a Roman colony. Zama Regia became a colony under
Hadrian as colonia Aelia Hadriana Augusta f i t may perhaps have been even earlier a
colonia Augusta? But this further promotion had certainly not taken place when the
present coinage was struck w i t h the Julian epithet. This, then, is an issue by the
municipium Julia Zama Regia—the epithet being correctly in agreement w i t h the ethnic,
as at Dertosa and Bilbilis (pp. 158, 170).
The cognomen Iulium indicates that the foundation took place during the years 49-
28 B.C. A closer attribution is obtainable from the singular appearance o f A . Ambatus,
who receives the unusual distinction o f a repeatedpraefectura i. d.—without colleague,
as representative o f the princeps who is duovir (p. 323)—and o f portraiture. N o w
within the whole o f this period the only other praefectus i. d. who is honoured with a
portrait at a Roman city is Cn. Stati. Libo at Saguntum (p. 163). This personage has
been identified with the adsignator o f the municipium, who stayed on in office as
praefectus for Augustus, the first duovir. L . Aclutius L . f. Gallus, who fulfilled the
same roles at Venafrum, actually remained for two years as praefectus™ I t is significant
1
E.g. Rev. arch. VIII (3c sir.), 1886, 64-^76. ILS. 6111c.
8

2
E.g. CIL. vm, 828, 5352, 10640. 9
One or the other of the Zamas is commemo-
3
E.g. ibid. 10548; cf. p. 1109. rated by an inscription (Ephemeris Epigraphica, v,
4
Ptol. iv, 6. 6; cf. Dessau, PW. 11, 2767. p. 649, no. 1473; cf. ibid. p. 280, no. 289; and
5
Cf. Wissowa, PW. 11,2720. Mommsen, Hermes, xx, 1885, p. 144) as
6
NH. v, 30. [COLONIA] A V G . ZAM(a) fif[AI]0[R] or
7
Strabo XVII, 829 ff., records the destruction M[IN]0[R]. Veith's supposition that there were
either of this or of the other Zama—this one, ac- three Zamas (l.c. p. 627) is corrected by Rice
cording to Rice Holmes, l.c. p. 538; Veith, l.c. Holmes (l.c. p. 539).
Pp. 622 ff. 1 0
CIL. x, 4876 ( =Inscr. Reg. Neap. 4627).
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
that Ambatus also is PRAEF(ectus) ITER(um). Only the duties o f adsignator could
warrant his double praefectura and exceptional portrait. This conclusion is confirmed
by several considerations. First, his coinage is the only issue o f Zama, and such
isolated coinages are, except for a few jubilee issues i n the last years o f Augustus's
life, foundation-issues (p. 290). Secondly, these are frequently postponed for one
year or more (p. 291). Thirdly, Ambatus's second praefectura cannot have been earlier
than 27, since the princeps is already Augustus; but it cannot have been later than 26,
since the new foundation (completed before the first praefectura) is still Iulia. This
provides the remarkably satisfactory conclusion that the issues o f Ambatus and Libo
—which are associated by the exceptional appearance o f local magistrates' portraits-—
were precisely contemporary. This deduction is entirely suited by the portrait o f
Augustus on Ambatus's coins, which imitates a model fashionable immediately after
1
Actium.
Thus Saguntum and Zama Regia were both founded i n c. 29-28 B . C . A t this date the
princeps had not yet concentrated all foundations i n his own hands (p. 293). Just as
C. Calvisius Sabinus was the constitutor o f Saguntum, so, i n all probability, L . Autro-
2
nius Paetus, governor o f Africa at this date, played the same part at Zama Regia. His
3 4
adsignator was A . Ambatus—a Berber w i t h a Celtic name, like many o f his race —
who, i n the same way as Cn. Statius Libo and L . Aclutius Gallus, remained i n charge o f
the constitution inaugurated by himself, as representative o f the first duovir i. the
princeps. The portraits o f the adsignatores prove that they attained unusual importance
in the years immediately following Actium. This was due to a limitation o f the
governors' powers at foundations. From 27 onwards they were no longer entrusted
with deductiones and constitutiones, and undertook foundations i n the subordinate
capacity o f adsignatores for Augustus (p. 293). Probably, i n the years before 27 also,
the real power i n the important new Roman cities i n the Western provinces—part o f a
huge plan in which Italian foundations were also prominent—was vested i n the hands
of special agents like Libo and Ambatus, who represented the princeps i n deed as well as
in name (p. 294). However, the coin-portraiture of adsignatores is extended to one pro-
consul before it ceases: A p . Pulcher pro cos. is honoured in this role at Apamea (p. 25 5) at
the very date at which Libo and Ambatus are similarly celebrated, and so bridges the
transition between special plenipotentiary adsignatores and governors entrusted w i t h
those tasks. Ambatus, Libo and Pulcher close the list o f portraits commemorating
9
founders o f Roman cities who do not belong to the princeps house.
The aedile A . Terentius (?) T i r o , who, as at Tingis (p. 177), is named without a
colleague, was no doubt immediately responsible for the issue.
1
BMC. Imp. Aug. 625, etc. RAenanarum, 782; Schurmanns, Siglesfigulins,267).
a
Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 116; cf. PIR. 1, 342. For a gens Ambasia, vide Schulze, p. 345. For
2

1680. another Celtic name in Numidia see below, p. 185.

3 The name appears in Spain (CIL. 11, 623, 907, 4
Cf. Schulten, PW. vii, 1721.
2709, etc.) and on the Rhine (Corpus Inscriptionum
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 185
The obscure numismatics o f Numidia, to which Simitthu (?) and Zama Regia
contribute, are also illustrated by the totally unknown coinage o f a neighbouring
municipium :
1 2
(1)
V I R R E S bearded head o f Hercules-Melkart to left, w i t h club behind
neck—nnVlR. A V . head o f Minerva to left, with helmet and sceptre
(PL V I I , 2).
(2) 3 Youthful male head to l e f t — V I R . I I I I V . round star (PL V I I , 3).
4

The style of these pieces indicates this neighbourhoods The same obverse type, simi-
larly executed, is found on some of the coins of an unknown peregrine city o f the same
region, and the head o f Minerva recalls the coins o f Simitthu (?) (p. 178). The slovenly
6

7
epigraphy is characteristic o f Numidia. Moreover, Virres has a Celtic name like
Ambatus, who was praefectus at Zama Regia (p. 182).
The title IHIvir. Au(gusti) is paralleled by Ilvir. Aug. Des. at Halaesa and Ilvir. quinq.
Aug. at Thermae Himeraeae (?) (pp. 195, 237). As Cuntz points out, these formulae 8

describe the first magistrates o f a new enfranchised city: at Halaesa the first duovir
has not yet even taken office. Thus the present issue also joins the ranks o f the Roman
foundation-coinages. The foundation i n question must have occurred after the
princeps assumption o f the name Augustus i n 27: since i t is not possible to find
9

0
quattuorviri at any colonia Augusta, it must be supposed that the city was a municipium
Augustum. Style indicates a date very shortly after 27: there is therefore a strong
presumption that the community w i l l appear among Pliny's fifteen so-called oppida
10
civium Romanorum o f provincia Africa, which include every known municipium
11
Augustum. His list, as i t stands, raises considerable difficulties. Absuritanum and
17, 1 14
Thibidrumense are probably Assuras * and Thub* • • *, both Julian colonies: Pliny
1
BiM (2), Paris. Monogram 7 (a),
2
necessarily assist attribution of the present issue,
3
Copenhagen. whose style, though akin, is not identical.
4
The V is misshapen (Monogram 7 (b)). Cf. Holder, Altceltischer Sprachschaq, s.v.;
7

5 This is confirmed by E . S. G. Robinson. Blanchet, Traiti, p. 145 (VIRRE. COM. F.).

6
BM, Copenhagen. Muller m, p. 53. 63 ff. Klio, vi, 1906, p. 471.
8

9
attributes this to Hippo Regius and Tipasa in They occur at two Julian colonies, e.g. Thapsus
alliance: but such alliance-coins are generally dis- and Parium (pp. 225, 248).
credited in Africa and Spain (p. 339), and id., NH. v, 29, 22, 24.
1 0

Suppl. p. 66. 64 a, sees that the supposed ethnic of 1 1

His misleading description of Roman towns as
Tipasa is not this at all. E . S. G. Robinson points liberae(p. 183) applies only to Julian communities—
out that the ethnic attributed to Hippo was read by regarding which his information was inadequate—
Muller upside-down. The same applies to Charrier's and, as far as can be seen, only to colonies,
interpretation of an ethnic of Icosium (Description 1 2
For the textual variations vide Mayhoff,
des monnaies de la Numidie et la Mauretanie, p. 48, Teubner ed., l.c.
100 ff.), so that there is no ground for the attribution Broughton, pp. 49 n. 14, 80; cf. Haywood, £ 5 .
1 3

of the present coins to that mint. The actual neo- iv, p. 106 for the identification.
Punic ethnic, however, entirely defies interpreta- Identified by Kornemann, PW. xvi, 595;
1 4

tion: and, in any case, its solution would not Haywood, I.e.; Treidler, PW. (iR), vi, 282.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
often confuses this class of city w i t h other 'free' communities (p. 226). Secondly,
1

Broughton has convincingly established that this list includes a number o f peregrine
oppida which contained a pagus or conventus civium Romanorum (p. 403): these are 2

loosely classed w i t h the true Roman communities whose organisations they tended to
imitate (p. 404). I n this category are Uchi Maius, Thibica, Chiniava* and Vaga.
3 4 6

A minori, Uchi Minus should join them. This city is entirely unrecorded except by
Pliny: the same is true o f Abutucense, Aboriense and CanopicumJ I t is highly improbable
that towns whose very names are unknown were ever o f Roman status, and these com-
munities may confidently be added to the oppida peregrina which included a paganal
organisation o f Romans. As for the rest o f Pliny's list, Simitthu is unsuitable for the
present issue since i t was a municipium Iulium, and therefore founded before 27 B . C .
(p. 180); so was Utica, whose geographical position is incompatible w i t h the execution
8

of the pieces. Thabraca? also is a very unlikely choice for coins o f such pronounced
10
Numidian character: the productions o f coastal cities usually attain more civilised
11
standards, and the cosmopolitan harbour-town o f Thabraca is too easterly for the
attribution to be possible.
The only cities which remain eligible are Thuburnica and Thunusuda. Both of these
12
are shown by Broughton to be very likely municipia Augusta: both are in the Bagradas
region, to which the style o f these coins is entirely suitable. Both are, i n particular,
13
only six miles distant from Simitthu, to whose coinage, and central position i n the
commerce o f the area, allusion has been made. But foundation-coinages i n Africa are
highly infrequent, and were only permitted to Roman communities whose economic or
political importance distinguished them from the rest. I t is difficult to attribute the
insignificant municipium at Thunusuda ( H r . Sidi Meskine) to this category; but T h u -
burnica (Sidi A l i bel-Kassem) was a large city. Its importance had already been recog-
nised by Caesar, who had planted a pagus there. I t is also, perhaps, more suitable for
the attribution o f these coins, w i t h their pronounced native traits, by reason o f its
position i n the foot-hills some way north o f the Bagradas, whereas Thunusuda
bordered the river some ten miles farther to the East. A t this latitude those miles are
1
For the libertas of colonies and municipia, see 1491; cf. Ptol. iv, 3. 31) should probably be trans-
pp. 314, 324. ferred to Canopitanum (Pliny, NH. v, 30). The two
2
P. 77. towns are distinguished, as according to Pliny, by
3
Ibid. pp. 50 n. 23, 82 n. 209. Broughton, pp. 50 n. 24, 51 n. 31.
4
Ibid. p. 50 n. 22. Pliny's Tibigense refers to this
8
Pliny, NH. v, 24. 9 Ibid. 22.
town (Broughton, p. 81 n. 204; Windberg, PW.
1 0
This is confirmed by E . S. G. Robinson.
[2R.], vi, 812) rather than to Thigibba (as suggested
11
Cf. Haywood, ES. iv, p. 305, etc.
by Haywood, ES. iv, p. 106).
1 2
Pp. 49 n. 14, 55 n. 64, 79 (Thuburnica)—un-
5 Broughton, pp. 50 n. 22, 82 n. 206. For the necessarily queried by Treidler, PW. (2R.), vi, 620
town vide Atlas archiologique de la Tunisie, xii, cor- —pp. 50 n. 18, 79 (Thunusuda).
recting Dessau, PW. in, 2545.
1 3
For the geographical position of Thuburnica,
6
Broughton, pp. 50 n. 22, 82 n. 207. vide Atlas archiologique de la Tunisie, xxxi, no. 7;
7
Dessau's attribution of Canopicum (PW. in, for Thunusuda, ibid. 113.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 187
a region o f transition from the Numidian cultural zone to the Zeugitanian. This is a
conjectural argument, but, i n a subject where a dearth o f facts requires conjectures, i t
may possibly serve for the tentative attribution o f these coins to municipium Augustum
Thuburnica, whose establishment in the Roman right—perhaps accompanied by immi-
gration—they w i l l have commemorated at some date between 27 and 12 B . C . Here, at all
events, is a third unrecognised municipal issue from the Eastern Numidian zone of Africa.
Another coin o f mysterious character supplies information about an equally obscure
municipium Augustum at the other end o f the province:
S I T V M C A E S A R I C turreted female head to left—Capricorn, cornucopiae,
1
rudder and globe (Pi. X I I , 29).
2
Muller and Cavedoni* attribute this to Iol-Caesarea: the former is obliged to justify
this view by remarking that the legend doit se lire SIT V M CAESARIS. The epi-
graphical improbability is slight beside the fantastic unlikelihood o f his interpretation:
} 9 i 9 4
Si turn Caesaris is translated *I' etablissement de Cesar ou consacre a Cesar . I t is
difficult to see how ara Druso sita* which he quotes, is parallel; moreover, the Latinity
6 7
is intolerable, especially for a cultural centre like Caesarea. Muller* s alternative
8
suggestion —S. II.V(*V) M(unicipii) CAESARIS—is invalidated by the unparalleled
and improbable character o f the phrase Municipium Caesaris, by its inapplicability to
Caesarea, and more particularly by the clear appearance o f S I T V M on one of the extant
specimens. Charrier rightly omits the coin from his work on Numidia and Maure-
tania, and thenceforward i t has been discreetly ignored.
The fabric is certainly African; the unique and isolated character o f the issue sug-
gests a commemorative occasion such as a foundation, and Calvisius and Sittius have
provided precedents for interpretation of the legend as C A E S A R I C(pnditori) or Consti-
tutor!) (pp. 160,181). S I T V M C A E S A R I C(onditori) suggests a parallel to T H A P S V M
I V N ( o « ) AVG(ustaep S I T V M , then, is likely to be an ethnic like T H A P S V M . A
town which fulfils all the necessary conditions, orthographical, numismatic and historical
alike, is Zitha. I n the first place, i t has been shown i n connection w i t h Zama Regia
that initial Z 3 was represented at this time by S (p. 182). Secondly, the omission of the
10
aspirate causes no difficulty i n Africa: the Itinerarium Antonini actually speaks o f
' Zita'. Thirdly, the issues o f Thapsus bear witness to the fluctuation o f case-termina-
tions i n Africa: almost exact parallels for S I T V M , where S I T A might be expected, are
12
provided by Sullechthi and Thubursicum, where we find Sublecte" and IOAAEKTOV,
1
The Berlin specimen illustrated shows the 4
m, p. 141. 5
Tac. Ann. 11, 7.
initial S; a second coin in the same collection and 6
As suggested by Gsell vm, p. 224 n. 2.
another at Copenhagen suggest that the last letter is 7
Cf. Dessau, PW. in, 1294.
C. The Copenhagen example makes it clear that the 8
L.c. n. 4.
third letter, which on other pieces resembles an I, is a T. 9 Hague; Muller 11, p. 47. 12 (Tiberius).
2
in, p. 138. 211 f.; cf. Suppl p. 78. 1 0
Ed. d'Urban, p. 19; Parthey-Pinder, p. 371.
3
Annali delV Inst, di corr. arch. XXXVII, 1865, 1 1
Geogr. Raven. 3. 5, 5. 5.
p. 261. 1 2
Procopius, De Bello Vandalico, 1, 16.
i88 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
1 2
GovpovpCTiKcc and T(h)ubursicu(m). Thus S I T V M is an entirely regular transcription
o f the Punic ethnic o f Zitha, which is seen, on an 'autonomous' coin rightly reascribed
here by E. S. G. Robinson,3 to be ST. Further numismatic considerations confirm the
attribution o f our Latin coin. Its types are peculiar to Tripolitana, in which Zitha
4
lay. A Capricorn, with similar attributes, occurs nowhere else i n Africa but at Leptis
Magna 5 and Sabrata —and Leptis Magna also portrays a turreted goddess precisely
6

7
like ours, while Sabrata also shares a bearded head o f unusual appearance with the
'autonomous' coin o f Zitha ( n . 3). The historical aptness o f Zitha is no less complete.
The C(pnstitutio) postulates Roman or Latin status; the latter may be excluded, since
Latinitas was so rare at this time that it could not have escaped comment (p. 174 n. 8). The
0
Itinerarium* describes Zitha as municipium, and so does the Tabula Peutingeriana. Both
these works obtained their information concerning city-statuses from an official docu-
10
ment not later than the Antonine period. N o w Zitha cannot have been an Augustan
municipium before c. 16-12 B.C., since i t is absent from the list used by Pliny. W e have 11

no more official lists before those o f the geographers: any information that has survived
concerning the intervening period is entirely fortuitous, as a study o f Sicily w i l l show
(p. 189). There is, therefore, nothing to prevent an attribution o f the constitutio o f
Zitha to any date after c. 16-12." Pliny habitually omits foundations by Caesar
(p. 226); but the Capricorn type, as i t appears here, indicates an Augustan date for this
coin,^ and, since Augustus continued to be known as plain' Caesar' all his life (p. 110), i t
seems less likely that this was a belated commemoration o f a Julian or Julio-Octavianic
constitutio than that i t was a normal contemporary foundation-issue after c. 16-12 B.C.

1
Ptolemy iv, 3. 29. Parthey and Pinder, I tin. Ant. p. 371, identify it
2
Vide Treidler, PW. (2R.), vi, 621 for material. with Kaliat or Kelah. Cagnat and Schmidt, CIL.
3
BM. Muller (Suppl. p. 66) had already ten- vm, Suppl. 1, p. 1145> do not accept any of these
tatively corrected his false attribution to Suthul attributions.) Latin inscriptions of the early princi-
(in, p. 59). The head shows a close resemblance to pate have been found at Hr. Zian (CIL. vm, 11002,
coins of Sabrata (11, p. 28). Particularly striking is 22690), and one (ibid. 11016 a) even bears the letters
the type of an olive-branch on the 'autonomous' D.D.
piece—the Punic for this is the same as the 5 Muller 11, p. 6. 17 ff.
ethnic of Zitha (cf. Levy, Ph6ni(isches Worterbuch,
6
Ibid. p. 28. 61 ff.
P- 34).
7
Ibid. p. 4. <S f.
8
4
Its exact site, however, is no less obscure than L.c.
its history; but since it lay between Gigthis ( ' X X V 9 Miller, Itineraria Romana, p. 899.
mpm') and Villa Magna ( ' X X X V mprn\ and is
1 0
Kubitschek, Jahreshefte des 6st. arch. Inst. V,
further qualified in the Itinerarium by the word 1902, pp. 73 ff.
Ponte, it cannot have been far from the straits
11
Cf. Cuntz, Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie,
separating Meninx from the mainland. The only Suppl. XVII, 1890, pp. 489 ff.
1 2
possible site, according to the present state of know- The attribution of'alliance* peregrine coinage
ledge, is Hr. Zian. (This is the view of Reinach and to Oea, Zitha and Zuchis by Muller (11, p. 20. 38 ff.)
Babelon, Bull, du com. 1886, pp. 64 f.; cf. Smith, is based on a complete misunderstanding (p. 339).
Atlas of Ancient Geography, pi. 32; but Muller 11,
1 3
It could not be earlier than denarii after 27 B.C.;
p. 20, thinks that it was at the bridgehead, and vide BMCR. 11, p. 418 (Paris) for the earliest.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 189
The coin is o f too early appearance to join the African jubilee issues o f c. A . D . 8
(p. 338). The exact date o f the constitutio is perhaps shown to be 7 B . C . by gifts o f
libertas to the cities o f the neighbouring Tripolis—Oea, Sabrata and Leptis Magna—
as part o f a general scheme at that date (p. 341). Their libertas is peregrine, but
Zitha's is Roman: probably i t was acquired at the same time. The adsignator may well
have been P. Sextius Scaeva, quaestor pro praetore i n Cyrene i n c. 7-6—the proconsul o f
Africa being away i n Marmarice fighting a war which had caused the amalgamation o f
Cyrenaica-Creta with Africa (p. 142). Here, at all events, is a second Augustan
municipium, and a third municipium i n all, which coins within the province o f Africa.
It w i l l be shown i n the next Chapter (p. 223) that aes coinage throws no less light
upon the African colonies than upon its municipia. The former coin for various com-
memorative purposes, but the issues o f African municipia that have been discussed are
limited to celebration o f their city's constitutio. The same is true o f the coinage o f the
next province to be examined.

7. SICILY: Panormus, Henna, Halaesa, Assorus, Agrigentum, Cossura, Melita,

Cephaloedium, Messana, Tyndaris, Lipara, Lilybaeum, Haluntium
The administrative history o f this province is complicated. I t received Latinitas from
Caesar in c. 44, civitas from Antony by a Lex Iulia ( o f doubtful Caesarian inspiration)
1

2 3
in A p r i l o f that year: after rescinding all Antony's enactments i n the next winter,
Octavian was probably induced to recognise this one at least i n autumn 43 But Sex.
Pompeius conquered the island a month or two later,* and so the Julian plan was
suspended (pp. 25 ff.): Octavian definitely revoked i t i n 36/ retaining citizen com-
munities only at Lipara (p. 195)* Thus i t appears that all other Julian communities
must be limited to the years 44-43. Because o f many misinterpretations due to
chaotic execution, the coinage which falls i n this brief period has hitherto been mis-
7
leading rather than helpful. Quite wrong, for example, is H o l m ' s quotation from
Imhoof-Blumer o f the reading on a coin with the heads o f Dioscuri to right, and a
dolphin—MVSANO A T H l N - • • • or M V I P S A N O A T H E N C.IVLIO DION-
VSIO I I V I R I S E X D . D . H o l m assigns this to Tyndaris—presumably owing to the
heads o f the Tyndaridae, since no other grounds are discoverable. More significant
than this common type is the close resemblance i n style and obverse design to the
pieces o f Sex. Pompeius w i t h H I S P A N O R V M , which are found overstruck on
1
Cic. Atu xrv, 12. 1. 5 Appian, BC. iv, 84; Dio XLVIII, 17. 16. The
2
Ibid. / / Phil. 92, / / / Phil. 10; cf. Syme, RR. cities did not all fall at once. After a brief struggle
p. 272; Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 4; Sherwin- A. Pompeius Bithynicus/vo cos. made an agreement
White, p. 175, denies Caesar's authorship. with him, and can scarcely have encouraged Julian
3
Cic. XII Phil. 12, XIII Phil. 5; cf. Scramuzza, foundations thereafter.
ES. in, p. 343. 6
' C f . Frank, JRS. 1927, p. 154.
4
Scramuzza, I.e.; cf. Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 713. 7
757.
i o
9 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
Panormitan aes (p. 29). Moreover, an examination o f the half-dozen extant specimens
1
o f the present issue indicates that the true obverse reading is this:
S. A N T O . 3 A T H E N I . [ I I V I R ] M V . I . P.4 ( P i . V I , 1, 2).
2

The ethnic is MV(nicipium) \{ulium) P(anormus)—and the cult o f the Dioscuri was
honoured at Panormus 5 as well as Tyndaris. W i t h these coins must be classed an issue,
6
o f similar style and equal rarity, w i t h C. I V L I V S [C(?).] F. L O N G V S I I V l R (caps o f
Dioscuri) and E X . D . D . (dolphin) (Pi. V I , 3). The appearance o f two Julii and an
Antonius makes i t certain that these coins (which are i n the style o f the forties) were
produced during the brief period o f Julio-Antonian enfranchisement i n 44-43 never :

afterwards was Panormus a municipium or a Julian community (p. 198). There can be
no doubt that C. Julius Dionysius and Sex. Antonius Athenio7 (whose issue is o f the
more ambitious and 'programme* character) were the first magistrates o f the Roman
community: i t is unlikely that they, or a previous pair, had taken office during the
month or two o f the Latinitas before the constitutio municipi under Antony's law. Their
issue is a clear example o f the foundation-coinage which plays so predominant a role at
municipia. The coin o f C. Julius C. f. Longus belongs to the interesting category,
represented by no less than eight examples, o f second issues from the foundation-
fund (p. 291): i t was probably struck after Octavian's recognition o f the enfranchise-
ment i n autumn 43. The governor who must have constituted this municipium was A .
8 0
Pompeius Bithynicus: the coinage shows that his timid reliance on Cicero did not
prevent prompt compliance w i t h Antony's enactments, and apparently the appoint-
10
ment o f loyal Caesarians. I t also resolves the doubts o f RostovtzefT and Scramuzza"
whether the Julio-Antonian enfranchisement was ever commenced.
T o the same phase must be attributed an issue by Henna, o f early fabric and de-
12
nominations, w i t h M V N . H E N N A E and L . M V N A T I V S M . CESTIVS I I V I R ( P i .
V I I , 4). Pliny's citation o f the city as stipendiaria * bears witness to its subsequent loss
13 1

o f Roman status. This, too, is a foundation-issue o f the new municipium. M . Cestius

P. f. Primus was a tribunus militum who also found time to be duovir at another newly
1
enfranchised city, Thermae Himeraeae; * soldiers are regularly found i n leading local
16
magistracies at this time. The appearance o f a freedman o f L . Munatius Plancus sug-

Berlin (3), Copenhagen, Palermo (2).

1
Cichorius, Romische Studien, p. 245; Sternkopf,
Palermo (Gabrici, p. 194. 57).
2
Hermes, XLVII, 1912, p. 328.
3 Berlin—cf. PI. VI, 1. 9 Bithynicus, ad Cic. Fam. vi, 16.
Palermo, Berlin—cf. PI. VI, 2.
4
SEH. p. 546 n. 19.
1 0
ES. in, p. 343.
1 1

5 Cf. BMC. 23; Kekule, Terrakotten von Sicilien, E.g. quincunx (Cefalu; cf. Tropea, Numismatica
1 2

p. 40,fig.82, etc. skeliota del Museo Mandralisca, p. 28. 2).

Palermo (4) (Gabrici, p. 194. 53-56), Berlin
6
BMC. 9-11; Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 736.
1 3

(Holm 756). NH. in, 91; cf. Kornemann, PW. xvi, 593.
1 4

7 The cognomen is well known in Sicily—cf. Cic. 5 CIL. x, 7348. For the family's business-con-
x

Verr. in, 136. nections, vide Hatzfeld, p. 128.

Klein, Romische Verwaltungsbeamten, pp. 85 ff.; Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 178.
8 1 6
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 191
gests appointment not before 43, when Plancus, previously a Republican, had de- 1

2
serted to Antony and Octavian. I f this is so, the coin—and probably the constitutio—
will belong (like the second issue o f Panormus) to the last months o f that year, when
the cities prematurely believed that their Julian civitas was an established fact. The fact
that both Henna and Panormus are municipia, not colonies, points to a generalisation:
we have no record of-Sicilian colonies at this date, and a similar mass enfranchisement
3
of Cisalpine Gaul had been primarily municipal.
The coinages o f two other cities have a close connection w i t h the issues described
and w i t h each other. Pieces o f Halaesa w i t h H A L A E S A A R C H O N I D A and M .
4
CASSIVS M . A N T . or C A E C . R V F . I I V I R 5 do not resemble the Augustan municipal
mintages o f the same town (p. 195). O n the other hand, style and fabric recall the
6
inauguratory coins of Henna, which, like Halaesa, became stipendiary under Octavian;
and at Panormus, i n just the same way, a foundation-issue signed by two duoviri is
followed at a short interval by a single coinage only—signed by one. M . Cassius and
M . Antonius are to be considered the first magistrates o f Roman Halaesa, and probably
—by the analogy o f other issues on which the duoviral titles are omitted (p. 235)—its
adsignatores. The fact that there is time for a second issue from the foundation-fund,
with a different signature, suggests that the inauguration and inaugural coinage can be
placed as early as 44. The moneyer o f the second coin was probably a freedman o f L .
Caecilius Rufus, praetor urbanus i n 57 B.C. 7

8
Assorus, too, is stipendiary i n Pliny, but has a Latin issue which suggests a muni-
cipal foundation i n 44-43. This includes a head o f A p o l l o which is exactly duplicated
0

10
on the inaugural coinage o f Halaesa, and a reverse type ( C R V S A S " ) which strongly
12 13
recalls that o f Henna. Another type at Assorus is a yoke o f oxen: this does not
invalidate attribution to a municipium, but indicates that, as at many others (p. 324),
allotments were made. N o doubt some o f the numerous Caesarian veterans were
accommodated i n this way at more than one o f the new Sicilian municipia.
14
Other isolated Latin issues o f similar appearance were made at Agrigentum, and
1 16
the island communities o f Cossura * and Melita. The whole group is clearly to be
1
Cf. Plut. Brut. 19; Cic. / / Phil. 78; Hanslik, L.c.8

PW. xvi, 546. 9 BMC. 1. 1 0

E.g. BM.
2
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 17. For negotia- Head, HN. p. 127; cf. Cic. Verr. iv, 44.
1 1

tions of c. Dec. 44, vide Cic. XIII Phil. 44; Bardt, BMC. 11.
1 2
BMC. 2; Holm 759.
1 3

Hermes, XLIV, 1909, pp. 576 f. Holm 735 a; Mommsen, M^w. p. 664. Torre-
1 4

3
Cic. Att. V, 2-3; cf. Rudolph, Stadt und Staat muzza, Siciliae populorum, etc., veteres nummi, p. 7,
im romischen Italien, p. 97. pi. VI, 19, cites from Lucca mus. a very dubious silver
4
Holm 729. coin of the same type. But cf. Hadrumetum (p. 227).
5
Ibid. 752; Palermo (Gabrici, p. 136. 16). Holm 733; Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 776.
6
Pliny, NH. in, 91. BM; cf. Mayr, Die Insel Malta, p. 106. 6. This
1 6

7
Asconius, ap. Cic. pro Mibne; cf. Stella city was enfranchised as a municipium (ibid. p. 106;
Maranca, Memorie delta R. Ac. dei Lincei (sc.-mor.), cf. Kubitschek, Imp. p. 132, pace Mommsen, CIL.
v
> 1926, p. 330. x, p. 773) like other cities of the province.
192 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
attributed to the brief period o f universal Julian municipalisation, and shows that at
least some cities completed their transformation before the forcible installation o f a
new order by Sex. Pompeius.
A n important feature o f Sextus's reorganisation was the settlement o f Spanish refu-
gees at Syracuse and Panormus, the latter by L . Junius legatus Siciliae (p. 30). These
cities thereupon ceased to be called Iulia, but continued to have Roman constitutions:
Sextus was naturally not disposed to cancel the technical processes o f transformation
which the previous government had laboriously undertaken. I t is not, therefore,
surprising that we find, at other cities also, completion by Sextus's agents o f Julian
enfranchisement plans. The most important coinage i n this connection has, when not
ignored, been misread. Its true description appears to be this:
(1) 1
C. C A N I N . RE[BIL]VS his portrait to right—KEOA. Hercules
standing with club and lionskin (Pi. X I I , 28).
(2) * C. L . D O M I N V S bearded head o f Hercules to right—as last.
The reverse-type is well known on the issues o f Cephaloedium. A chronological
attribution is obtainable from comparison with the heads o f Roman officials which
appear on the coinage o f Roman cities from the death o f Caesar onwards. The style
suggests a date very early i n this period: and P. Sittius, M . Rutilus, Q. Hortensius,
and M . Lurius, are all portrayed in this manner before 40 (pp. 240 etc.). The four
portraits mentioned all occur on foundation-coinages: and no Roman city-issues i n
Sicily throughout the entire period covered by this book belong to any category but
this. I t is necessary to conclude that this, too, is a foundation-issue, as, indeed, the
history o f Cephaloedium, comprised as i t was i n the Lex Iulia o f Antony, confirms.
The Latin legend on the coin bears witness to citizenship—no peregrine town i n
Sicily uses Latin—and a Greek ethnic at a Roman municipium is paralleled i n this pro-
vince on coins o f Lipara (p. 195) and on inscriptions o f three Sicilian cities.3 There can
be little doubt, then, that this is a foundation-issue o f the Roman municipium at
Cephaloedium.
T o the Julio-Antonian period o f enfranchisement, however, i t cannot belong. Pro-
vincial founder-portraits i n the forties are invariably of governors: and the governor o f
Sicily i n 44-43 was not C. Rebilus, but A . Pompeius Bithynicus. Our search for an
attribution, therefore, is narrowed down to the period o f Sextus's rule. Here attempts
to identify C. Caninius Rebilus are rewarded. One o f the proscribed i n 43, who joined
4
Sextus i n Sicily, was called Rebilus: he must be the man here represented, constitutor o f
1
Berlin (2), Paris, Cefalu, Palermo (Gabrici, ibid. 367 (uouviKimo, at Haluntium; cf. Jenison,-
p. 128. 27). Not as Holm 750, Cuntz, Klio, vi, 1906, The History of the Province of Sicily, p. 104); CIL.
p. 474, Hill, Coins of Sicily, p. 217. x, 7240 (8eKOpicoves, at Lilybaeum).
2
Cefalu (Tropea, Numismatica siceliota del 4
Appian, BC. iv. 48; cf. Miinzer, PW. Hi,
Museo Mandralisca, p. 17. 28; Head, HN. p. 136). 147.8 (6).
3
IG. xiv, 954 (HOUVIKITTIOV TCOV 'AKpocyccvrivcov);
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 193
Cephaloedium and no doubt a successor o f L . Junius as legatus Siciliae. He may have
1
been a renegade Caesarian called C. Caninius Rebilus: i n this case he w i l l have owed
2 3
his promotion by Sextus to previous experience o f the island. Caninii found i n Sicily
are likely to owe their gentilicia to enfranchisement by the founder o f Cephaloedium
(and probably o f other cities also).
The same interpretation o f this coinage supplies an explanation for the enigmatical
C. L . D O M I N V S . There can be little doubt that his coin is closely connected with (1):
their type and style are similar, both are bilingual, and the pair o f them stand together
in complete isolation. Dominus would be exceptionally unusual as a cognomen at this
4
early date; moreover, the lack o f any other title suggests a different interpretation.
Although the two words were officially contrasted by the Caesarians,5 dominus is well
6
attested as an equivalent forpatronus. The supposition that C. L* • • waspatronus o f
the municipium o f Cephaloedium is confirmed b y our knowledge o f current practice.
As has been mentioned i n connection with M . Atius Balbus patronus reipublicae at
Uselis (p. 151), the patroni o f a Roman city included its constitutor or deductor and his
subordinate adsignator or curator (p. 34). The issues o f Paestum provide an example o f
their combination, as Ilviri col. ded. for foundation and the coinage which celebrated i t
y

(p. 284)^ and at Saguntum we actually find them commemorated on separate pieces
(p. 163)—the two issues for which a foundation fund was often sufficient (p. 291).
Moreover, these two coins suggest that Rebilus and C. L . were contemporary and con-
nected; Rebilus appears to have been a founder; the omission, b y contrast, o f the
latter's head indicates subordinate office. I t is impossible to resist the conclusion that,
just as Rebilus was the constitutor o f municipium Cephaloedium (perhaps M V . C O N .
is missing) so C. L* • • was its adsignator. Such appointments by Sextus i n agreement
w i t h Caesarian practice are i n accord with his completion and adaptation o f the Julio-
Antonian enfranchisement scheme: he often took special pains to avoid breaches o f
8
constitutional form and continuity. W e may compare the activity o f Brutus i n estab-
lishing colonies planned by the dictator (p. 33).

1
PIR. 11, p. 94; C . Caninius Rebilus, legatus of 3 E.g. CIL. x, 7398 a.
Caesar. Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms, 11,109. 4
Its contracted form only becomes known after
39, etc. do not identify him with the proscribed: but the accession of Julia Domna in A.D. 193 (cf. Well-
the praenomen on these coins suggests that identifica- mann, PW. v 1526), the unconnected form only
tion is possible. They might also have been cousins. in Christian times (cf. CIL. xii, 3020,11, 3045, etc.).
2
Adcock, CAH. ix, p. 652, suggests that Caesar's 5 Serv. ap. Verg. Aen. vi, 612; cf. Suet. Caes.
legatus was in charge of Sicily for a brief period in 27. 1; Tac. Hist. 1, 2.
49-48. In any case the coins cannot belong to so 6
E.g. Notqie degli Scavi, 1920, p. 229: libertus
early a tenure, as the occurrence of Rebilus's por- domino suo; cf. Martial 1,112.1,11,68. 2, x, 10. 5, etc.
trait at that date would be out of the question. We 7 The two officials often remained in control of
may dismiss also the possibility that the portrait the civil administration of their city for a con-
exceptionally refers, posthumously, to the C . siderable time (Jullian, TP. p. 29).
Rebilus who governed Sicily in 171 B.C. (Munzer, 8
Cf. Volkmann, Munchener Beitrage %ur Papy-
PW. in, 1478 [8]). rusforschung, xxi, 1935, p. 41 n. 1.
194 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
It is possible to deduce other foundations o f Sextus from the group o f insignificant
coinages. One issue has been attributed, without a shadow o f justification, to the
1
clearing-house favoured by puzzled numismatists, Panormus. This is inscribed D . D . ,
2
sometimes w i t h L . Q . The type is a Pharos, found also on denarii o f Sextus,3 where i t
4
is crowned by a statue o f himself —presumably erected after these aes pieces were
struck. Aes and denarii alike may perhaps be supposed to represent the well-known
6
lighthouse at Messana,* still recalled by the village o f Faro. Such types parlants occur
7
not infrequently as ethnics, but can only be considered as such when the ethnic itself is
8
lacking. There can be little doubt that these meagre bronze coins were issued on the
capture o f Messana by Sextus early i n 42,9 and that they bear witness to a garrison-
settlement planted to enforce the heavy penalties inflicted on the city. I t is unlikely
that this is a solitary exception to the limitation o f Sicilian city-coinage to foundation-
issues : by the analogy o f Cephaloedium it may be assumed that L . Q. was the consti-
tutor or adsignator.
It is not improbable that a similar small piece, w i t h no mint-mark but the caps o f the
Dioscuri ( P i . V I I , 7), refers, likewise b y a city-badge, to Tyndaris, which was one o f
10

11
Sextus's first captures, and may well have been treated i n the same way as Messana.
This attribution, again, is not invalidated by the occurrence, on other pieces w i t h the
same type, o f the ethnic o f Panormus: here the type itself must serve as ethnic.
On the whole, the foundation-policy o f Sextus as illustrated b y these unknown
coinages does not suggest much consideration for the Sicilians. Panormus and Syra-
cuse were devoted to refugee Spaniards, Messana and probably Tyndaris to Roman
garrisons. But this may not be a fair cross-section o f Sextus's policy: apart from his
observance o f constitutional forms, we learn that he was generally benevolent to the
12
Sicilian people, and that the emergencies o f his rule stimulated an unparalleled i n -
dustrial activity in the island.^ Perhaps the foundation o f Cephaloedium illustrates this
more favourable aspect o f his dominion, for which Augustan historians have naturally
14
spared little sympathy.
When Octavian, i n 36, revoked not only the Pompeian settlements, but also the
Julio-Antonian enfranchisement scheme, only two communities retained their
civitas. I n both of these, Lipara and Tauromenium, wholesale deportations o f Pompeian
supporters warranted fresh drafts o f cives and so refoundations; and one celebrated
1
E.g. BMC. Sicily, p. 124. 13. I.e. the appearance of a Pharos with the ethnic
8

2
Palermo; cf. Gabrici, p. 156. 132. PI. V, 24. of Agrigentum (p. 191) may be irrelevant to the
3
BMCR. pi. C X X , 14, 15. present attribution.
4
Liegle, Transactions of International Numis- 9 Dio XLVIII, 17. 6; cf. XLIX, I I . 2; Scramuzza,
matic Congress of 1936, p. 211. ES. Ill, p. 252.
5
Cf. Baumeister, Denkmaler des klassischen 1 0
Berlin,
Alter turns, usw. p. 957. Dio XLVIII, 17. 6.
1 1

6
Philipp, PW. xv, 1230. 1 2
Ibid. 17. 2; cf. Scramuzza, l.c. p. 251.
7
Cf. Netzhammer, VIHe Congresinternationaldes 1 3
Scramuzza, l.c. pp. 251, 287, 309, 345, 372.
sciences historiques, 1938, pp. 73ff.,and below, p. 259. Velleius 11, 73. 3; cf. Scramuzza, l.c. p. 251.
1 4
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 195
1
its compulsory revolution w i t h coinage. This issue o f Lipara, w i t h a head o f Vulcan
and the type o f his tongs, shows various forms o f the legend T . M A P K I O C A E Y .
3 4
T. A Y C 6 3 N E Y I AYO A N A P . ( P i . V , 23). Rudolph's assumption o f the invariability
of duoviri at colonies and quattuorviri at municipia is unacceptable (p. 169): but
Jenison's ruling,5 that colonies must use Latin officially but municipia need not, is i n
6
general correct. P l i n y records the establishment—no doubt after the mass deporta-
8
tions by Octavian?—of a citizen community, which we may assume w i t h Munzer and
10
Kornemann? to have been a municipium. Municipia, like colonies, often consisted o f
1
drafts o f settlers, and O r s i V conjecture o f a colony at Lipara is unplausible. W i t h the
exception o f Tauromenium, Lipara was very soon the only citizen community i n the
12
province: this may account for the choice o f its mint for an extensive official
coinage just before and after Naulochus (p. 52). There is every probability that C.
13
Marcius L . f. and L . Ausonius ( ? ) were the first magistrates o f the new foundation,
which so isolated an issue inevitably commemorates; so this single coinage o f Lipara
appears to record the first stage o f the disciplinary inflictions on the unfortunate
province (cf. pp. 395 fF.)-
14

x
Subsequent phases o f the gradual and partial re-enfranchisement and Romanisation 5
are strikingly illuminated b y an obscure group o f municipal coins which have been
entirely misunderstood. They can be divided into two series according to the absence
or presence o f a proconsul's name. I n the former category there are only three issues,
of which one may be attributed to colonia Thermae Himeraeae (p. 238). O f the two
municipal coinages, one was struck at Halaesa, which is shown to have exchanged
stipendiary for municipal rank—after the compilation o f Pliny's list—by an inscrip-
1 6
tion IMP. CAESAREI (sic) D I V I F. A V G V S T O P. [P.] M V N I C I P I V M . The coins
17 18
have a laureate head o f Augustus to r i g h t or to left, w i t h the legend H A L A E S A
J
A R C H O N I D A ; on the reverse is M . P A C C I V S M A C X V . (sic) * F L A M E , or M . P A C .
20
M A X . I I V I [ R A ] V G . D E S . round A V G . i n wreath (PL V I I , 6). The formula Hvir
1
Tropea, Archivio storico per la'Sicilia orientale, I(Documenti
, inediti per servire alia storia dei Musei
1901, p. 32. a" Italia, ill, 1880, p. 383. 156).
2
Friedlander, Ann. dell* Inst, di corr. arch. 1852, Notice degli Scavi, 1929, p. 99.
11

p. 156; Hill, Coins of Sicily, p. 216, read AC. Chilver, JRS. XXVIII, 1938, p. 246, points out
1 2

3
As Muensterberg, Beamtennamen, s.v.; Fried- that, pace Scramuzza, I.e., it is very unlikely that
lander, l.c. even Latinitas survived in Sicily.
4
BM; not AY03N, as Holm 715. For this gentilicium—hitherto only known at a
13

5
L.c. pp. 104 ff.; cf. IG. xiv, 367, 954; CIL. x, later date—see Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, 11, 1540.
7240. For exceptions vide Kubitschek, SB. Wien, Dio XLIX, 11. 5; cf. Scramuzza, l.c. p. 345.
1 4

CLXXVII, Abh. 4, 1916, p. 104 n. 1. 5 Cf. Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 772; Stevenson,

x

6
NH. in, 93. CAH. x, p. 207. CIL. x, 7458.
1 6

7
Dio XLVIII, 48. <5—to be sent back later. Berlin; cf. Holm 754.
1 7 1 8
Paris.
* PW. xiv, 1544. 9 PW. xvi, 593. '9 Berlin: not MAXSV. (as Holm).
Berlin, Palermo (Gabrici, p. 136. 19). For the
1 0
It is impossible to verify a coin with the Latin 2 0

legend LIPAR., quoted from the Carelli collection Etruscan gens Paccia vide Schulze, p. 204; for a
196 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
Aug(usti) des(ignatus) is clearly o f an exceptional character. Augustus would not have
1
overridden ordinary municipal elections, and commendations iudiciis Augusti are a
2
later phenomenon which would not i n any case justify the present phrase. Cuntz
rightly concludes that the only occasion which could warrant this was the foundation
of the municipium: the Lex Coloniae Genetivae luliae expressly informs us that Caesar
had appointed the first magistrates of Urso,3 and similar titles occur on foundation-issues
of municipium Thuburnica (?) (p. 185) and colonia Thermae Himeraeae (?). Strongly
in favour o f this view is the fact that the duovir is only designatus: he does not yet hold
office, since the control o f new Roman cities was for a time i n the hands o f the adsig-
4
nator to whom the founder entrusted the w o r k . Here then is an issue similar to those o f
the constitutores o f Simitthu (?) and Saguntum (pp. 178,15 8). Since at this time Augustus
6
can say mea auctoritate deductasy> or even baldly deduxi, o f foundations undertaken by
his representatives, i t is not surprising that the emphasis is laid on him alone (p. 293).
The second piece i n this category bears the ethnic o f Lilybaeum, and the name
7
A V G V . : this too is a kind o f inauguratory issue, since the foundation-fund often
enabled the initial coinage—with which, at Lilybaeum, this cannot be identified
8
(p. 197)—to be repeated (p. 291).
The remaining issues o f Roman municipia include three asses,? with heads o f
10
Augustus, and a semis with triskeles:

Asses
1 1
(1) A V G V S T O P. P. A G R I G E N T I N . — L . C L O D I O R V F O PRO COS. i n
wreath round S A L A S S O C O M I T I A L E , ^ SEX. R V F O I I V I R . (Pi. V I I , 5).
12

1 4
(2) CAESAR A V G V S T V S — Q . T E R E N T I O C V L L E O N E P R O COS.
L I L Y B . head o f Apollo.
(3) ^ A V G V S T V S — S I S E N N A _PRO COS. i n wreath round L . S T A T I V S
l6
F L A C C . . . [P. C O T T A B A L . J I I V I R . / • 7.:

Pacius at Syracuse, vide Notice degli Scavi, 1895, and a Latin inscription are posthumous, as seen by
no. 174; for a Baggius, see below, p. 213. No Paccius Gabrici, p. 206, in correction of p. 98.
Maximus is otherwise known until the second 9 Av. c. 110-125 grains.1 0
Av. c. 82 grains.
century A.D. (CIL. vi, 32638c. 26). 1 1
BMC. 162, Munich; AVGVS. (BM); PR.
1
Cf. Mommsen, St.R. 11, 1082. (Munich); A G R I G E T I N . (BMC. 160); C L D I O
2
Klio, vi, 1906, p. 471. (Palermo: Gabrici, p. 119); R F O (own collection).
3. Ch. 125.
1 2
The Salassi owed their position to support of
4
Rudorff, Gromatische Institutionen, p. 334; cf.Caesar (Cic. Fam. vi, 18. 2, Q. Salassus).
Marquardt, St.V. v, 1, p. 458; Jullian, TP. p. 29, 13
I.e. senior duovir; cf. Hardy, Roman Laws and
shows that he was actually sometimes one of the Charters, p. 69. Misread by Mommsen, Mpy. p. 663.
first duoviri. 1 4
BM, Florence, Paris, Athens, Palermo (2), own
5 RG. 28, as restored by Weber, Princeps, 1, collection (2); L I L . (Glasgow).
p. 252* n. 672, etc. *5 Paris (*Panormus'), Athens (uncertain);
6
RG. 3. 7
Palermo (Gabrici, p. 144). SISnNNA (Gotha), SISENA (Paris).
8 1 6
Panormitan issues with the head of Augustus Omitted on a Paris coin.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 197

Semis
(4) 1
SEPT. E T B A L B . I I . V I R . — L . SEIO P R O COS. round D . D . (Pi. V I I , 8).

(3) and (4), like the rest, are o f Sicilian provenance. 2

Chronology is not assisted by
portraiture, epigraphy or style, since these are o f the poorest, and do not develop: they
3
warrant the gloomiest descriptions o f Sicilian civilisation at this time.
(1) and (2) bear the ethnics o f Agrigentum and Lilybaeum, both o f which became
4
municipia after the compilation o f the list on which Pliny depends. By comparison
w i t h coinage o f the Augustan and Tiberian colonies, i t is possible not only to achieve
attributions for (3) and (4)—which are often attributed without the slightest plausibility
to the general ' d u m p ' Panormus—but to establish the fact that (1), (2), (3) and (4) all
belong to the 'foundation' category. The only colonial piece o f Augustus—an as w i t h
the ethnic o f Tyndaris and the signature o f L . Mussidiuspro cos. (p. 237)—resembles this
series. Another colonial piece is a semis w i t h the signatures o f a college o f duoviri and
o f P. F. Silva /?r[aetor] or pr[o cos.]:$ i t must be attributed to the principate o f Tiberius
6
and to colonia Panormus. A close similarity o f types, size, and weight, indicates that
1
BM, Berlin, Palermo, own coll.; misread by abbreviation for pro consule, or praetor as applied to
BMC. p. 128. 13, Holm in, p. 526, Bahrfeldt, l.c. proconsuls (pp. 61, 135).
p. 428. 79, etc. Borghesi's invention SESSTIO , 6
Bahrfeldt, RS. xii, 1904, pi. IV, 92. 93 notes a
(Bullettino archeologico napolitano, NS. VI, 1858, striking similarity to a peregrine coin of the city.
pp. 31 f.) has been righdy rejected by Holm, I.e., and The issue of Silva (if that is his name: vide Borghesi,
Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 37. Even Borghesi (l.c. CEuvres, vm, 397; PW. vi, 2617 [180]) may there-
p. 31) saw that Sestini's L . VIBIO was wrong. fore be supposed to have been made, at the latest,
D'Ailly's APPVL. is expelled with justice by Klein not long after its * refoundation \ But a late Augustan
(Die romischen Verwaltungsbeamten, 1, 1, p. 100), or Tiberian date for this piece is suggested by
while Sestini's L . S E X T I . P R O C O S . (Descrqione Kornemann (169), and indicated by the career of
di molte medaglie, p. 16; cf. Holm, I.e.) is tooledL . Seius, whose name appears on the parallel issue
from a common coin of Panormus (Munich, etc., (see p. 198). There are, moreover, particular reasons
var. BMC. 47). These imaginative flights are due for supposing that the deductio did not occur until
to the crudity of style and lettering. after the mutiny of A.D. 14. The aerarium militare,
a
E.g. specimens of each, found in West Sicily, founded in A.D. 6, did not quickly collect enough
acquired by the writer in Rome. (3) is misattributed funds to make the demobilisation of veterans
by Scott, NC. xiv, 1852, p. 123. punctual (Parker, The Roman Legions, p. 212): in-
3
E.g. Holm in, pp. 232 f.—Die Cultur eines deed, after the German disaster of A.D. 9, none at all
Gren^lanaes. were discharged for the rest of the reign, and the
4
For the former vide Kubitschek, SB. Wien, mutineers of A.D. 14 made it very clear that it was
CLXXVII, Abh. 4,1916, p. 104, pace Mommsen, M\w. this circumstance which had become particularly
p. 663; for the latter, ILS. 6768; cf. Kornemann, intolerable (Tac. Ann. 1, 17, 35). Thereafter, how-
p. 540; Pais, Museo italiano di antichitd classica,ever, their discharge was—for some time at least—
1, 1885, p. 48 n. 1, correcting Liber Coloniarum, prompt (ibid. 1, 37, 52). Now the foundation of the
p. 236. colonies of Augustus, which were of a military
5
BM, Berlin, Naples, Palermo, own coll.; cf. character, was the result of a policy which gave
Bahrfeldt, RS. X I I , 1904, p. 426. 78: misread by allotments of land as partial substitute for the
Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 37, etc. Cuntz, Klio, vi, statutory donative of 12,000 sesterces (Parker, l.c.
1906, p. 471, does not know that PR. is found as an p. 246: Dio LV, 23. 1): thus the establishment of
198 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
this issue is not far from contemporary w i t h (4), the semis o f L . Seius. This prob-
ability is confirmed by his identification w i t h Seius Tubero, consul suffectus as late as
1 2
A . D . 18, and by the spectrograph: his coin contains a certain proportion o f zinc,
which is not found i n the pieces w i t h Augustus's head,3 but appears i n Tiberian pere-
4
grine mintages o f the island, to which the issue signed by Seius also approximates i n
weight. However, good specimens show that the resemblance to Silva's coin is one o f
category only, not o f execution: Seius's piece is very unlikely to be o f the same mint as
Silva's, and, indeed, it cannot be classified at all satisfactorily w i t h any o f the coins o f
the Augustan period. (3) is likewise stylistically isolated. Thus, o f the seven Augustan
and Tiberian issues o f Roman cities that have been discussed—five asses and two
semisses—not only are five demonstrably from different mints, but stylistic considera-
tions require that to the other two also should be attributed an origin different from the
rest and from each other. A second curious feature is that the proconsuls are never the
same: w h y should seven different cities all commemorate—on their only issue—a
different governor? The difference o f dates, which these names require, makes i t clear
that the whole group o f issues cannot spring from a single general warrant; however,
their uniformity o f type and their variety o f mint postulate a special commemorative
occasion, shared by all, but at different times. Moreover, not only does each o f these
pieces appear to be o f a different city, but the only other coins issued i n Sicily during
the same period are o f three mints that are again separate from each other and from the
rest.5 Those are all foundation-issues: these must belong to the same category. Only
in this way can be explained the uniformity o f type, but the surprising variety o f
proconsuls and o f mints: only i n this way the commemorative character which the
6
isolation o f each issue at its city indicates. Furthermore, not only w i l l i t be seen
throughout this survey that coinages commemorating deductio or constitutio are far
more common than has been believed—and have a monopoly o f Roman city-currency
in other provinces besides Sicily—but i t is on such issues that the names o f proconsuls
regularly are found: i n fact, apart from these their appearance at Roman cities is limited
to a few honorary portraits i n Africa (p. 229). The honorary insertion o f their names on
a regular colonial series would be pointless; on these seven foundation-issues, as on all
the rest o f the same category, its purpose is clear. When Augustus orders a foundation,
a coin o f Apamea (p. 255) shows that, as i n Republican times, i t is the governor who
carries i t out; but now the auctoritas springs from the princeps (p. 424) and i t is no
longer the governor himself who is constitutor (or deductor) and patronus, but Augustus.
The governor is now merely i n the position o f adsignator {curator operis) (p. 293). I t is

Panormus is very unlikely to have fallen in a period Augustan foundations. PIR. 111, 192, 248.
1

when no veterans were being discharged, but is most Spectrogram 47.

2
Ibid. 45, 46.
3 4
Ibid. 44.
probable for the ensuing years of rapid demobilisa- Halaesa, Tauromenium, Segesta (pp. 195, 236,
5

tion. There is no evidence for the attribution of 335).

6
colonia Panormus to Augustus, as by Paribeni, The special circumstances which accompanied
Augustus (1938), p. 413: Pais, l.c. p. 44, points out the Lilybaeum issue with A V G V . (p. 196) do not
that the epithet 'Augusta' may well refer to post- invalidate the present thesis.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 199
for this reason that, like A p . Pulcher at Apamea, the proconsuls o f the present group
have no explanatory title to add to their proconsular rank. The legend o f (1) indicates
that the coinage is by 'the Agrigentines to Augustus'; the proconsul's name (in the
Ablative Absolute) serves both to date the foundation o f the municipium and to honour
with eponymy the governor who undertook i t for the princeps. I n this way is explained
the bewildering variety o f proconsuls commemorated, since there is no reason to
believe that any foundations (after those o f 21 B . C . ) were simultaneous.
It remains to identify the mints o f (3) and (4). Besides Tauromenium, whose
1
deductio occurred too early for either (p. 236), there are four cities o f Roman rank
under Augustus o f whom no Augustan coin has yet been identified. Coloniae Catana
and Syracuse, i n Pliny's list, were probably founded (by Mussidius) i n 21 B . C . ;
2 3

4
municipium Messana is likewise included i n the list, but need not be o f that date;5
6
another municipium was established at Haluntium shortly before the end o f the reign.
Now the head on Sisenna's coin (3) is certainly not late enough for Haluntium: since,
therefore, Catana and Syracuse were apparently founded by Mussidius, Sisenna must
7
have been the constitutor o f Messana, whose foundation-issue his coin thus represents.
It is now clear that (4), o f Seius, similarly commemorates the constitutio o f Haluntium,
which must have occurred not more than a year or two before Augustus's death and
the subsequent deductio o f Panormus recorded by Silva's parallel issue (p. 197, n. 6).
No veterans were being settled at this time, but the constitutio was facilitated by the
presence o f a large Roman conventus?
The Augustan municipal currencies o f Sicily—as o f Africa—are therefore restricted
to foundation-coinages: these occur at Messana (before 12 B . C . ) , Halaesa and L i l y -
baeum (after 12 B . C . ) , Agrigentum (after 2 B . C . 9 ) and Haluntium (c. A . D . 12-14).
These issues, like many others, show that i t was customary for such foundations, each
representing a fresh step i n the Romanisation o f the Empire, to be commemorated by
this most enduring form o f publicity. I t was for a record rather than for a currency
that such rare issues were intended: the aes coinage which supplied economic needs i n
Sicily consisted o f specially countermarked official Roman pieces (p. 96), to which the
10
foundation-series—sometimes similarly countermarked —merely constituted a scanty
addition. Apart from these, the veto on coinage o f Roman cities by the Lex Plautia
Papiria (cf. pp. 1, 154) remained i n force on the island.
1
It cannot entirely be excluded from possibility minus ante quern within the principate of Augustus
that one or two more existed (cf. Kornemann, PW. is provided by ILS. 119.
xvi, p. 593). But Scramuzza, ES. in, p. 347, has no 7 2
For conjectures as to his identity, vide PIR.
authority for the Roman status of his nos. 21-25, 11, 362. 1455 (Cornelius).
and in nearly all cases inscriptions indicate or imply 8
Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 171 f.
a later date for the enfranchisements. ' Probably L . Clodius Rufus is the consul
2
NH. in, 88, 93. suffectus of A.D. 7 (PIR. 11, 280. 1183).
2

3
Kornemann 166; Scramuzza, l.c. p. 346. 1 0
Own coll., found in Sicily; cf. Torremuzza,
4
Pliny, l.c. 88. Siciliaepopulorum, etc., veteres nummi, pi. VIII, 9,11,
5
Kornemann, PW. xvi, p. 593. p. 9.
Ibid.,-cf. Cuntz, Klio, vi, 1906, p. 467. A ter-
2CO THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA

8. I T A L Y : Paestum

I n Italy, only Paestum, a municipium since 90 B . C . , was remarkably excepted from this
1

2
veto. A few words must be spared for its coinage before our period, since i t has led
4
to the gravest delusions concerning the status o f the city. Mommsen3 and R u d o l p h
deduce that a transition from quattuorviri to duoviri occurred i n the time o f Sulla; bu
an examination o f the coins makes i t clear that the last magistrate to bear the title o f
quattuorvir, M . Octavius (Pi. V I I , 9,10), is at least as late as c. 60-55 B . C . 5 N o r does he,
as Mommsen believes, issue some pieces as duoviri A third mistake is the acceptance
6

8
o f Manutius's r u l i n g that the transition i n question automatically indicates a change
from Roman municipal to colonial rank: coins and inscriptions show that there are
0 10
numerous exceptions both i n the provinces and i n I t a l y . Actually, the last years o f

1
Cf. Kubitschek, Imp. p. 46, etc. near the beginning of the change is C. As. Vi. IHIvir
2
Cf. Nicodemi, Milan Cat. p. xvi. (Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I , 6; cf. Leake, Numismatica
3 CIL. x, p. 53; Hermes, xvm, 1881., p. 167. Hellenica, p. 138) and at the end C . Ax. IHIvir
4
Stadt und Staat im romischen Italien, pp. 89(Garrucci, l.c. 32)—perhaps a banker who issued
n. 3, 93 n. 3. tesserae in 68 (Herzog, PW. xvn, 1426)—and
5
The weakness of Mommsen's case is suggested M. Oct. IHIvir (Garrucci, l.c. 29; BMC. 48 f.,
by his self-contradictory query elsewhere (M^w. Berlin). The former of these is late enough to borrow
p. 338) as to whether Paestum coined at all before a type (boar pierced by javelin) from the Roman
Augustus. It did coin during the Republic—and issues of C. Hosidius (c. 55 B . C : BMCR. pi. X L I H ,
extensively. A study of the types in use makes it 14, corrected to this date by Mattingly, RC. pis.
evident that, as at Rome, the uncial standard was Vin, 15, Xm, 2). 6
CIL. x, p. 53 n. 1.
halved soon after the Social War. It is, for example, 7 This conclusion is based on an examination of all
significant that uncial semisses have the types of a six pieces known. These include four semisses (BMC.
club (Garrucci, Le monete dell* Italia antica, pi. 48,49, two at Berlin) ( P I . VII, 9, 10)—the type is a
C X X I I , 27) and Macedonian shield (ibid. 20), both rudder, of which the handle becomes entangled in
found on Roman issues before c. 92 B.C. (BMCR. the lettering: but the four strokes of the numeral
pi. X X I X , 15, 19) and that on subsequent sem- are clear—and two trientes (Berlin), with type of
uncial issues (Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I I , 7, C X X I I , caduceus. All are poorly preserved and executed.
34; BMC. 67; Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I I , 2, re- Ap. Cic. pro Sest. 8: cf. Rudolph, l.c. p. 87.
8

spectively) are represented the Dioscuri heads of 9

Coins of municipia Tingis, Henna and Panormus
M\ Fonteius (c. 91 B . C , BMCR. pi. X X X , 16), the (pp. 177, i9of.) and inscriptions of Gades, Asido,
fasces and securis of C. Norbanus (c. 82 B.C., ibid, etc. (cf. McElderry, JRS. 1918, p. 81) with duoviri;
pi. X L , 13), and the elephant of Q. C. M. P. (c. 79~77, coins of coloniae Thapsus, Parium with quattuorviri
ibid. pi. C , 10). It is clear that Mommsen's query (pp. 225, 248). Cf. above, p. 169 n. 3.
was unjustified. The coinages which follow indicate 1 0
Rudolph admits a long list of exceptions, and,
that his theory of a Sullan change from quattuorviri like Beloch (Romische Geschichte, pp. 497 ff.) and
to duoviri was equally false. Later in style and Degrassi (Rivista difilologia, 1938, PP..129E), tries
lighter in weight than the issues with Dioscuri heads, to explain them singulatim. But the very existence
fasces and securis, and elephant (the last not before of so many special cases shows the fallibility of his
c. 77), are pieces on which the names and tides of rule; and more exceptions have recently been added
quattuorviri are clearly to be read. The standardby Parker (CR. 1938, p. 8), Brusin (Aquileia nostra,
gradually changes from semuncial to quartuncial: pp. vii f.), and Banti (PW. xix, 1083).
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 201
the Republic brought a general tendency for the colleges o f four i n both classes o f
community to divide into their constituent pairs (p. 177).
1
Sambon's assumption o f a pre-Caesarian colonia civium Romanorum at Paestum is
2 3
based on a confusion with Tarentum, and is equally erroneous. Finally, Marzullo
4
advances the extraordinary view that the original colonia Latina o f 273 B.C. continued
in a kind o f fusion w i t h the municipium o f 90: but his definition o f this melange
6 7
fluctuates5 and the parallels which he cites are largely irrelevant. Also he is unaware
that the quattuorviri on the coins precede the duoviri (p. 202), and dismisses the
8
former airily as numerically negligible; he uses an admittedly undatable statue for
10
his chronological argument,* wrongly regards its attribution to Marsyas as certain, and
11
then proceeds to interpret it, thus attributed, according to an obsolete v i e w ; he seems,
unless the present writer's understanding o f Italian is at fault, to regard ius Latinum
12
and ius Italicum as interchangeable, and to confuse coloniae Latinae and coloniae civium
1 3
Romanorum ; and he believes that colonies o f one kind or the other were the only cities
14
which coined under Augustus.
However, Marzullo contributes two important inscriptions from the Augustan
1
period, with PATR(onus mun)lClPl and (ma)NICEPS respectively. * T o the time o f
1 6
Augustus, too, he believes, should be assigned an inscription w i t h P A T R O N O C O L .
1
Recherches sur les monnaies de la presqu'ile of its date is confirmed by A. S. F . Gow and
italique, p. 274. A. D . Trendall.
1 0
2
As seen by Marzullo, Estratto degli Atti della Cf. Besques, l.c. The statue is omitted by Paoli,
SocietaItalianaper ilProgresso delle Scierp[e,v, 1932, Melanges d'archiologie et d*histoire, LV, 1938, p. 116
p. 18 n. 4; cf. pp. 16 n. 5, 20 n. 8. n. 1.
3 Ibid. pp. 14 ff., 18. 1 1
It will be shown below, p. 315, that Marsyas
4
Not 293, as Besques, Rev. arch. 1935, p. 177. was the attribute, not of ius italicum, etc, but, as
5
He says that the 'attributes and denomination* Servius states, of libertas: that is, libertas et civitas.
of the former continued alongside (accanto a) the Cf. below, p. 225, for the coinage of Hippo.
latter. It might be imagined that he is thinking of a 1 2
Ibid. p. 23.
geographically divided double community: some of 1 3
Ibid.—Augustus confirmed privileges 'that had
the parallels which he cites (pp. 18 ff.) suggest that never really been abandoned'. Cf. also p. 3, where
this is his meaning, e.g. Tarentum-Neptunia, but he Latin colonies are considered simulacra of Rome by
goes on to speak of * interference' di titoli, e spesso,Gellius's definition (NA. xvi, 3)—which is, how-
di cona\ione giuridica—and of /' incertefta delle cittd ever, as an after-thought (p. 4) rightly referred to
che malsapevano lasciare le lore prerogative per essere Roman colonies (pars civium as opposed to pars
colle leges municipals incorporate nello stato romano sociorum—cf. Serv. ad Aen. 1, 12).
(sic) (p. 19). 1 4
Ibid. p. 23—'colonies in the provinces were
6
E.g. Croton, p. 19; Tarentum-Neptunia (ibid.) allowed to coin by Augustus: Paestum coined under
was atfirstnot municipium + colonia as he states, butAugustus: therefore Paestum was a colony at the
foederata + colonia (Rudolph,l.c p. 125); Thurii andtime'. But over a hundred and thirty communities
Vibo (ibid.) were also joined not to municipia but to that were not Roman or Latin colonies (which does
peregrine communities (Kubitschek, Imp. p. 47; he mean?) coined under Augustus in the provinces:
Philipp, PW. [iR.] iv, 1010).
t in Italy no colony except Paestum (p. 284) coined
7
L . c p. 16. 8
Ibid. pp. 16, 18. at all! 1 5
Ibid. p. 17.
9
Ibid. p. 26; cf. p. 1, pis. I - I V . The uncertainty
1 6
von Duhn, Nott^ie degli Scavi, 1890-1, p. 92.
202 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
1
Criteria for an exact dating o f these are wanting; but they enable us to approach the
coins o f the Caesarian epoch w i t h at least a little chance o f avoiding the prodigality o f
error which has been lavished on the history o f this city. So far, then, it is possible to
say that Paestum became a colonia Latina in 273, a Roman municipium i n 90, and re-
mained i n this latter condition until its Roman colonisation some time within or near
the period to which this book is devoted. I t is, then, to be assumed that the earliest
colleges who coined i n this period will be municipal—a conclusion confirmed by the
discovery that the sixth o f them founded the colony, i n c. 36-28 B.C. (p. 284).
A l l the 'autonomous' issues after M . Oct. IIHvir and C. A x . IHIvir fall within this
period, and from the welter of blundered, ill-preserved and insignificant little pieces i t is
possible to attempt a reconstruction. Five colleges coined while the city was still a
municipium:
(1) L . Fad., L . Sta. 2

(2) L . Sei(?)., Q. Eq. (Pi. V I I , i ) . 3 2

(3) L . A r t . Ve., C. Comin. Ilvir?

(4) M . Sat., C. Hel. quint
(5) M . Marci., N . Gavi. Ilvir. 6

Various criteria can be combined to place these colleges in their present order. (3) still
bears the 'boar* type o f C. Hosidius (c. 55) used by the later quattuorviri. But (1) and
(2) probably precede i t by reason o f their omission o f a title, which is paralleled at
other Roman cities in the forties (pp. 234, 243) and here suggests the period o f transi-
tion from quattuorviri to duoviri. These two colleges are further connected by the type
of clasped hands, which first appears on denarii o f c. 49.? (1) and (3) are closely linked
to each other and to the latest quattuorviri (and separated from duoviri who follow) by
their uniform weight-standard, based on an as of c. 220-240 grains. On (1), (2) and (4)
8

only, there still appears the helmeted head o f Minerva i n the form and style used by the
quattuorviri? (4) and (5) are each based on an as o f 90-100 grains, but all succeeding 10

issues on one o f c. 73-77 grains (p. 284). This gradual decrease decisively indicates for
(4) and (5) a date soon after 37, when the same decline was first manifested on the
1 3
The last-named of them mentions a Q. Ceppius Berlin. Unpublished.
Q. f. Maximus of the tribus Maecia: but this tribe is BMC. 58 f., Parma; Garrucci, l.c. 22.
4

in any case more likely to refer to the constitutio of BM, etc.; Garrucci, l.c. 30.
5

90 B.C. than to an Augustan deductio; cf. early ap- BMC. 56; Garrucci, l.c. 36.
6

pearances at Brundusium, Hadria and Neapolis 7 BMCR. pi. X L I X , 18.

(Kubitschek, Imp. pp. 39, 65, 25). For Ceppii at 8
(1) c. 116; (2) 108 (one only, worn); (3) c. 117.
Paestum, vide Mommsen, Inscr. Reg. Neap. p. 8, 9 The quinquennalian title of (4) does not assist
no. 92. chronology, since this office is often found in the
1
BMC. 50; Danzig (Wissenschafdiche Beilage late Republic before the dictatorship of Caesar
lum Programm des stadtischen Gymnasiums \u (Rudolph, l.c. p. 214).
Danzig, 1893, p. 4). Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I , 23 is1 0
(4) c. 93; (5) c. 96.
incomplete.
 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA 203
official coinage, but the lowest figure had not yet been attained (p. 45). (4) and (5) are
distinct from later coinages i n type as well as i n weight: they are distinct also admini-
stratively, since their first successor, as w i l l be shown elsewhere, was the inauguratory
issue o f a colonia civium Romanorum (p. 284).
These five coinages, then, are t o be considered issues o f the Roman municipium
which existed until the establishment o f that colony. Among the magistrates are
several from families o f recent eminence. A T . Cominius was duovir at Narbo at
about the same date, and both Articuleii (p. 126) and Artorii* rose socially under
1

Augustus, like the Seii (p. 198); Q. Eq. is a member o f one o f the rare gentes Equilia 3

4
and Equitia; Gavius has wrongly been considered a German name.* These issues are
somewhat uninformative, and recourse must be had for their explanation to earlier
issues o f the same mint. One o f those indicates State-control by its formula S(ententia)
S(enatus) (Pi. V I I , 16): no doubt i n our period the control was exercised, no longer
6

by the Roman senate, but by the imperium o f the successive war-lords (p. 411).
1
But S.S. is amplified by S.P.D.D.—suffragio populi' (? sumptu publico} succlamante
0
populo ) decreto decurionum, referring to the local people and senate. The same piece
alludes to a tax o f 1J % , and, like others o f pre-Caesarian date recording 2 \ % " and
1 0

4 % taxes," indicates that the expenses o f each coinage were defrayed by a special
13
impost o f local, not Roman, origin. W e may compare the variety o f special sources
14
from which cities always defrayed public works. The conclusion that the Paestan
issues were, i n the last resort, municipal rather than official is corroborated, not only by
the appearance o f quattuorviri, duoviri and decuriones, but also by metrological con-

CIL. xii, 4389.

1 1
Vide CIL. vi, 90. (cf., from the neighbourhood, CIL. iv, 1604,1645),
CIL. xi, 7772.
3 4
CIL. xi, 3648 f. but for that very reason his interpretation L(ex)
Scharf, Neue Deutsche Forschungen, CLXXXV, L(ata) (accepted by Marzullo, l.c. p. 23 n. 3) is un-
5

1938, p. 59, corrected by E.B., JRS. xxix, 1939, tenable: the ligature cannot include the initial letters
p. 135. of two separate words.
Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I I , 5; Hill, Handbook of
6
" Vienna (corrected by Imhoof-Blumer, NZ.
Roman Coins, p. 148. This formula is regular at a XVIH, 1886, p. 235 from Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I ,
date when SC was not yet common: the decree of 27): Q. CEP(pius) D E I I I . T O L . For the triens tax
the Roman senate was advisory, and called sententia cf. Dig. 35. 2. 3. TOL.=» TVL(ir), an archaic form,
(cf. Abbott and Johnson, pp. 279. 19, 284. 21) or CIL. i , 595. 11 (Lex incerta). For its meaning,
a

auctoritas (cf. Fiirst, Die Bedeutung der Auctoritas, CIL. iv. 429: Polybius aedilis partem bonum fert.
Diss. Marburg, 1934, pp. 47 ff.). See p. 288. Q. Ceppius produced the issue from the proceeds
Cf. CIL. vm, 14.
7 8
Ibid. 309, 1412. of the tax.
Cf. Liebenam, St.V. p. 248 n. 1.
9 1 3
For such taxes on water, fisheries, etc., cf. Reid,
10
MlL(iesima), cf. Seneca, De Ira, ill, 33. Municipalities of the Roman Empire, pp. 453 f. It is
11
BMC. 72, cf. Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I I (righdy not accidental that it was under Tiberius, who
battutocolmetalloraccoltoperunaimposta):LL.EX. diverted most local vectigalia into the Roman
X X X X . —lati (sc. nummi) exquadragesima; cf. Tac. treasury (Suet. Ti. 49), that most coinage of
Ann. XIII, 5i,Symmachus, Ep.v, 6^,Ore\\i,Inscrip- Paestum and of most other Roman cities in the
tiones Latinae Selectae, 3344. For lati, cf. next note. West ceased (cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxiv).
Garrucci sees that the ligature represents double L 1 4
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 236.
204 THE ROMAN MUNICIPIA
siderations. The semisses o f the triumviral period make no pretence to tally i n weight
with the official military asses struck at the same date very near by i n South Italy
(probably at Puteoli [p. 46]), which are based on a far higher standard; it is true that
asses o f c. 250 and c. 80 persisted side by side during this period (p. 300), but this is a
particularly curious example o f their juxtaposition. Furthermore, the military mint
1
used an alloy with a high percentage o f lead and a smaller one o f t i n , whereas the
2
Paestan issues o f the period contain more tin but very little lead —approximately the
alloy to be used after c. 28 B.C. at Nemausus (p. 73).3
I t is clear, then, that the pre-Augustan issues o f Paestum, although their character
cannot be exactly paralleled elsewhere, must, i n the last resort, be considered as muni-
cipal. The formula S(enatus) S(ententia) merely bears witness to a stricter form o f the
State-c6ntrol which was later, when local issues developed, exercised also i n the pro-
vinces. The names o f the local magistrates corroborate the economic evidence to
show that, subject to this control, the Paestan mint so functioned as to deserve the
name o f a city-mint, and inclusion i n this Chapter.
1
Spectrograms 5, 5 a. 2
Ibid. 67. 3 Ibid. 1.
 205

Chapter 2
T H E ROMAN C O L O N I E S
1. S A R D I N I A : Turris Libisonis
w o closely connected Sardinian issues can be ascribed to this category. One o f

T them (Pi. V I , 20) is found exclusively in Northern Sardinia, where specimens

1 2
have come to light at Ploaghe, Padria, Sassari* and Truvine. A helmeted
head to right (resembling that o f Sardus Pater at municipium Uselis [p. 150]) accom-
4

panies the inscription Q . A . M . , L.C.VL I I V . , misread by Spano;5 on the reverse is

D . D . , and a plough, again recalling a type at Uselis (p. 152). But a second series clearly
from the same mint as the first (with a bareheaded portrait to right, plough, and
6
M . L . D . C. P.—hexastyle temple w i t h Q. A . M . , P. C. I I V . [PL V I , ' 1 9 ] ) again
7
emphasises, by its circulation, that its origin lay northwards o f Uselis: examples have
8 10 11
been found at Antas, Sassari (two),* Truvine, and Masala.
It is clear that on the reverses o f the two varieties the first duovir is the same. The
second name on the first coin may perhaps, by comparison with an inscription from
12 1
Turris Libisonis, be restored as L . Cerdonius Veratus. Attributions to Uselis * and
14
Metalla are based on conjectures derived from wrong readings. Plubium, which
1
Bornemann suggests, * was not i n any way privileged at the late Republican date which
the style o f these coins indicates, whereas the Latin inscription, and the institution o f
duoviri, both point to a citizen community. I t is this, then, whose foundation is
symbolised by the plough. I n Northern Sardinia, which the provenance o f these
16
coins indicates, the only oppidum civium Romanorum was colonia Julia—not municipium
17 18
—Turris Libisonis, which was enfranchised before 2 7 B.C.
1
Bornemann, Blatter fur Munifreunde, 1900, della Marmora, Voyage en Sardaigne, 1, p.
8

pp. 97 ff. 391; cf. de Retz, Bull. arch, sardo, 1, 1855, p.

2
Turin (Lavy, Cat. 4719); cf. ibid. 71.
3
Gotha. 9 Bornemann, l.c.
4
Spano, Scoperte arch, fatten nelV isola Sardegna, Spano, Bull. arch, sardo, IV, l.c.
1 0

1853, P. 17. 11
BM.
5
Id., Bullettino archeologico sardo, iv, 1858, 12
CIL. x, 7956.
p. 199. Cited by Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 810.
1 3

Rome and Castoldi coll., correcting numerous 1 4

Spano, Bull. arch, sardo, iv, l.c.
misreadings of clumsily executed pieces (e.g. BM, J
5 L.c.
Paris, Hunter, Castoldi) as by Albizzati, Annali Mommsen, CIL. x, 7951.
1 6

della Facoltd di Lett, delta R. Univ. di Cagliari, 1, Pliny, NH. 111, 85; Geogr. Raven., 5. 26.
1 7

1928, p. 1; cf. Ratto sale (1923) no. 1013. Kornemann, PW. iv, 1. 81; cf. Kubitschek,
1 8

7
Correcting Muensterberg's attribution to Car- Imp. p. 127. Colonies were founded by a lex dicta,
thage, Beamtennamen, s.v. Biondi, CA. p. 143 n. 1.
206 THE ROMAN COLONIES
The distinctive portrait on the second coin is not that o f dictator, triumvir, or
princeps. By the analogies o f M . Atius Balbus at Uselis, Q. Hortensius i n Macedonia,
A p . Pulcher at Apamea, and M . Rutilus at Lystra (pp. 150, 33, 255, 238), i t almost
certainly represents a governor and colonial founder. The legend should naturally be
read i n the order M . L . D . C. P. D(eductor) C(oloniae) is peculiarly suitable to follow
a founder's name. The last letter is unlikely to stand for praefectus or proconsul, as both
should precede deductor coloniae (pp. 252, 274); since municipium Uselis, i n the same
island, probably honours its founder as P(atronus) (p. 151), this is also the most plausible
restoration here. I t remains to identify the personage whose name is abbreviated to
M . L . A Julian colony could have been founded i n Sardinia i n c. 46-40 or c. 38-27 : x

but the earlier period is much more probable, since the omission o f Sardinia from
2 3
Augustus's colonised provinces i n the Res Gestae suggests a plan o f the dictator. W e
shall find that many other cities issued deductio-coinage very soon after the death o f
4
Brutus and Cassius: by their analogy i t is tempting to discover the name o f M .
L(urius), who was Octavian's governor i n Sardinia from c. 42 until his defeat b y
Sextus Pompey i n 40.* The restoration o f an inscription consisting o f initials only can
seldom be certain; but the present interpretation is at least consistent both w i t h the
internal evidence and w i t h parallels from elsewhere. Whereas the constitutio o f Uselis
by Atius Balbus was as late as c. 38-36, the deductio o f Turris Libisonis b y M . Lurius,
for which published evidence has been equally lacking, took place during his governor-
ship i n c. 42-40, when Antony's lieutenants were employed i n similar duties i n the
other half o f the Empire. The foundation o f Caralis, also o f the triumvirate, may be
ascribed to either o f these dates. Thus there are foundation-issues o f all three o f the
Roman cities o f Sardinia; and no other coinage occurs, w i t h the single exception o f a
piece celebrating the half-centenary o f Uselis (p. 153). Here, then, as i n other provinces,
coinage is purely commemorative.

2. G A L L I A C O M A T A : Lugdunum
Lugdunum also produced a foundation-issue, o f which only one specimen o f uncertain
6
denomination is recorded. The legends are C O P I A F E L I X and M V N A T I A ; on the
obverse, w i t h cornucopiae, is a turreted bust o f the city goddess, and on the reverse
a galloping bull, checked by Hercjules ( P i . V I I , 24). Colonia Copia at Lugdunum was
founded i n 43 B . C . by L . Munatius Plancus, governor o f Gallia Ulterior. As Willers*
7 8

1
Ganter, p. 26; cf. Klein, Die romischen Ver- unknown. A tessera of 51 B.C. (Herzog, PW. XVII
waltungsbeamten, Bd. 1, Abu 2, pp. 60 ff. [ 937]> !4 7) shows banking interests.
I 2

2
28. 3 Cf. Mommsen, RGDA. p. 120.
2
Paris, 46-5 grains.
6

4
E.g. Alexandria Troas, Parium, Lampsacus, Dio XLVI, 50; CIL. x, 6087.
7

Dyrrhachium, Philippi. Nicolaus Damascenus, Vita 28 (Smith College

8

5 Klein, l.c. p. 62; Syme, RR. p. 213, cf. p. 235 Classical Studies, iv, 1923, pp. 58, 94); cf. PIR. 11,
n. 6; id. Papers of the British School at Rome, xiv 390. 534.
(NS. 1), 1938, p. 17 n. 82 adds that his origin is * NZ. xxxiv, 1902, p. 68.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 207
points out, the title o f this coin indicates that he carried out the deductio without the
1
supposed co-operation o f Lepidus, who was governing the Narbonese province.
2
Hirschfeld's opinion that the epithets Felix Munatia were only added by Augustus
long after the foundation is unnecessary, since the style o f this coin is early; later pieces
have CO PI A without those epithets; and a similar initial display o f the first founder's
name, followed shortly by its total omission from coinage, is to be seen at colonia
3 4
Lepida Celsa (p. 211). De la T o u r plausibly suggests that the Herculean type o f the
present piece is connected w i t h Tibur, o f which Plancus was probably a native.* Thus
6
Grenier rightly attributes the issue to the year o f his governorship o f Gallia Comata;
and i t joins the large category o f foundation-issues, o f which the majority occur at
precisely the same period (p. 459).
7
A far more ambitious bronze series bears the inscriptions D I V I I V L I , I M P .
CAESAR D I V I F. and C O P I A . O n the obverse are heads o f Julius to left, laureate,
8
and Octavian to right bareheaded; on the reverse a prow, w i t h the device o f an eye,
and with oars. About half o f these coins* have a palm-branch between the heads, and
10
on the reverse a mast, a lofty deck-structure, and a star—no doubt the sidus Iulium —
11 12
superimposed on a globe (Pi. V I I , 23). A rare variety has a star above the head o f
13
Julius on the obverse (Pi. V I I , 22). On the rest all these symbols are absent. The
busts on the coins on which symbols appear are original; on the plainer varieties some
heads are modelled on the Gallic denarii o f c. 39, and others resemble those of L .
14
Livineius Regulus at the same date. The titulature o f Octavian recalls Gallic silver o f
1
c. 38 B . C . * Thus three indications combine to associate the commencement o f the
16
issues w i t h Agrippa's governorship at that time.
This coinage, whose circulation within Gaul was very wide, appears quite distinct
from the usual commemorative issues o f colonies at this period, and provides a clear
example o f the requisitioning o f a colonial mint to provide a province with currency.
It is noteworthy that the Narbonese province was supplied w i t h aes, at precisely the
same date, from an official mint at Arelate (?) (p. 41). However, the Lugdunese series
lacks countermarks, and does not compete in inter-provincial circulation with the issues
of Nemausus (p. 72): unlike those, i t cannot be considered more than semi-official.
17 18
Imitations abound, especially o f the plainer variety; but certain pieces invalidate
1
PIR? 1,59. 367. 9 Willers, l.c. 4, BM, etc.
2
CIL. xui, p. 250.
1 0
Cf. De Schodt, Rb. 1887.
11
3
It is true that Plancus did not fall into disgrace Undeciphered by Willers, l.c.
1 2
like Lepidus: but Octavian did not allow even his Berlin.
friends to name colonies, which were invariably
1 3
Willers, l.c. 5, BM, etc.
Iulia (and later Augusta).
1 4
E.g. Levis sale (1925), 165; cf. BMCR. pi.
4
Cf. Willers, l.c. p. 75. L V I I , 9.
5
Aero, ap. Hor. Carm. I, 7. 6
ES. Ill, p. 480.
J
5 BMCR. 11, pp. 410 ff.
7
Probably this is the analysis quoted by Willers, 1 6
Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 46.
I.e. p. 135 n. 78. 1 7
E.g. Poncet, Rn. 1899, p. 173, Paris.
Cf. Svoronos, JIAN. xx, 1920, 2, p. 65. l8
« E.g. Levis sale (1925), 165.
208 THE ROMAN COLONIES
Willers's suggestion that this was entirely barbaric. A l l varieties weigh c. 300
1

grains. I t is necessary to consider them asses o f the standard used b y the Pompeys i n
Spain and Octavian at Puteoli (?) (pp. 22, 47); Willers's interpretation as 'tresses 2

of the " F l e e t " system' is anachronistic and unsuited to a undenominational issue

such as this.
The last issue o f the colony has the inscriptions CAESAR and COPLA,
accompanied b y the bare head o f Augustus and a bull respectively. Its rejection by«
Willers* is unacceptable, since at least two specimens have been recorded, from the
4
Rothelin and Recamier5 collections. Their independent description makes i t highly
probable that both are authentic. They are connected i n type w i t h official semisses,
probably from an auxiliary mint at Lugdunum (p. 124), issued i n c. 10 B . C . Owing to the
disappearance o f both known specimens, the present issue cannot be dated w i t h any
certainty; but i t is clearly commemorative—like all such isolated and uncommon
6
colonial mintages—and the most probable occasion (owing to numerous analogies )
is the half-centenary o f the colony i n 7 A . D . 7

3. G A L L I A N A R B O N E N S I S : Arausio(?) v

The only colonial issue i n this province (Pi. V I , 21) has fallen between the two stools
8

10
of the descriptions, b y Willers? and Sydenham, o f the Gallic local and official curren-
cies respectively. O n the obverse, w i t h the legend I M P . D I V I F., are two bare heads;
on the reverse is a prow, with the * eye' found also at Lugdunum; above it is a medallion
11
enclosing a ram's head. I t is agreed that one o f the heads is that o f Augustus; the
12 14
other is variously ascribed to Julius, Agrippa,^ and Caius Caesar. These attempts are
the more remarkable i n view o f the complete similarity o f the t w o heads on the
obverse: both o f them are very closely modelled on Eastern denarii o f Octavian struck
later than c. 38 B . C . * A n explanation for this exceptional duplication is forthcoming
1

6
from S t r a c k V theory—based on other series—that all Gallic colonial coins w i t h two

L.c. p. 87.
8
1
BM, Paris; De la Tour, Adas des monnaies
2
Ibid. p. 134. gauloises, pi. VII, 4660 ff.
3 Willers, l.c. 9 NZ. xxxiv, 1902, pp. 79 ff.
4
Ibid. p. 89. NC. 1917, pp.53 ^
10

5 Cf. Panel, Mimoires pour Vhistoire des sciences, Cohen, Description kistorique des monnaies
11

1738, p. 1263,fig.82; Boutkowski, DN 1,1881; M. frappies sous Vempire romain, 1, p. 182, describes it
S. 1,148,152; seen by M. Dissard; Blanchet, Traiti, as disque au milieu d*un cercle.
p. 430. Strack, BJ. cvm, 1902, p. 16 n. 1.
1 2

6
E.g. Uselis, Carthage, Cirta, Lystra (p. 295). 1 3
Duchalais, Description des midailles gauloises,
7 Sutherland, RIS. p. 164, ignores this mint and p. 19. 1 4
Cohen, l.c.
the next—not to speak of Sicily and Sardinia— *5 BMC. Imp. Aug. 590ff.(cf. even fringe and
when he restricts true local coinages in the West to whiskers).
Spain and Africa. BJ. cvm, 1902, pp. 20 f.
16
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 209
heads were planned for the division into halves which they so frequently underwent.
1
The fact that halves o f these present pieces are extremely rare is immaterial i n view
of the rarity o f the coins even as wholes: only one, and that a very doubtful, identifi-
2
cation can be made from the whole o f the Neuss find. Such specimens as are found
3
come from the South o f France, and the style and two-headed plan confirm ascription
4
to the Narbonese province. There is no reason to select L u g d u n u m or Vienna,* since
the styles do not i n the least agree. The average weight o f these coins—which, though
yellow, are not o f orichalcum —is c. 270 grains, like the asses at Puteoli (?) and, at
6 7

first, at Nemausus (pp. 47, 73). These comparisons, confirmed by the portraiture,
8
indicate a date i n the middle or later thirties. The occurrence o f one pellet probably
signifies the unitary denomination.
A conjectural attribution can be derived from the ram's head on the reverse. Similar
types on Roman denarii* are irrelevant, since they appear to represent a family crest o f
the Rustii: this is a badge o f another sort. N o w a denarius struck i n c. 33 B.C. (p. 60),
10

apparently at Lugdunum, has the inscription L E G . X V I . , accompanied by a lion,which

11 13
also occurs on an aureus of A n t o n y ; W i l l e r s " and Ritterling interpret this as a legion-
ary device. The legionary title on the denarius indicates clearly that this is indeed the
14
character o f the type. Such crests were chiefly derived from the signs o f the zodiac.
Those o f Republican times are largely unknown, but a ram's head, as found on the
x
present series, was later adopted b y auxiliary cohorts 5 and b y a legion founded b y
16 17
Domitian: i t represented the goddess Minerva. Moreover, badges o f this nature
18
regularly appear i n circular medallions such as the present coin displays. N o w the
Julian coloniae civium Romanorum o f the Narbonese province were invariably founded
1
for the veterans of legions, ? whose numbers they embodied i n their titulature: Narbo is
Decimanorum, Baeterrae Septimanorum, Forum Julii Octavanorum, Arelate Sextano-
20
rum, Arausio Sedundanorum. The veterans who composed the first three o f these

1
One at Nimes. " NZ. xxxiv, 1902, p.. 83.
2
BJ. CXII, 1904, p. 451(?). 1 3
PW. XII, 1376.
3
4 found at Toulouse (mus.), 2 at Narbonne 1 4
Ibid. 1372.
(mus.), 2 at Vienne; specimens in the collections of 1 5
von Domaszewski, Abhandlungen des archao-
Marseille (2), Nimes (2 J ) and M. Nier (1) are also logisch-epigraphischen Seminares der Universitat
from the neighbourhood. Wien, v, 1885, p. 74, fig. 89.
4
As Blanchet, Traiti, p. 434. 1 6
Schilling, De legionibus Romanis I Minervia et
5
As De la Tour, Duchalais, ll.cc. XXX Vlpiana, Diss. Leipzig, 1893.
6
Spectrogram 6. 1 7
Ritterling, l.c. 1420 f.
7
Av. 7 (BM, Paris, own coll.). 1 8
von Domaszewski, l.c p. 43, fig. 29; cf. p. 73,
8
Between the heads (BM), or to their right fig. 89.
(Naples) or left (Turin). 1 9
Cf. Digonnet, Orange antique, p. 5 n. 1, and
9
BMCR. 1, p. 398. 73; BMC. Imp. Aug. 2. Chatelain, BibliotAeque de Vficole des Hautes Etudes,
1 0
Cf. BMC. Imp. p. ci. CLXII, 1908, p. 11, correcting Herzog, Gallia
11
Grueber, BMCR 11, p. 505; cf. Morelli, Narbonensis, pp. 81 f.
Pamiliarum Romanarum Numismata, pi. II, I . Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, IV, pp. 31 f.
2 0
210 THE ROMAN COLONIES
colonies were all from legions established by the dictator, whose device was accordingly
1
a bull, the badge o f Venus. V I Ferrata, which shared Arelate w i t h V I Victrix, was
2
represented by the Apolline symbol o f the w o l f and twins. Arausio, however, must be
3
classed apart: the second legion is not found i n the Gallic campaigns. Moreover, I I
4
Adiutrix was not established until Vespasian, and the other second legion is entitled
Augusta, and so can hardly have been founded before 2 7 B.C.5 Only the older Pom-
6
peian legio secunda can be considered i n connection w i t h the colony. The last-knowrf
appearance o f this was at the battle o f Forum Gallorum;? i t has not been recorded what
subsequent arrangement was made for its veterans. The foundation o f Arausio is
unlikely to have occurred before the death o f Julius, and may be as late as c. 33.9
8

10
Minerva appears on the coins o f Pompey, and might conceivably be his natal deity;
but legions also sometimes derived their crests from the time o f year at which they
were established." However this may be, i f the interpretation of the ram's head on these
coins as a legionary symbol is accepted—and no alternative suggestion has been
offered—then, w i t h the possible exception o f the insignificant Narbonese colonia
12
Valentia, whose foundation and titulature are alike uncertain, the only colony to
13
which the device is not unsuitable is colonia Firma Iulia Secundanotum Arausio. The
possibility cannot be excluded that these are official coins issued for an unknown
legion; but such an issue i n aes would be unparalleled. O n the other hand veteran
colonies frequently specify on their coinage the legions from which they are sprung;
moreover, city-badges occur frequently i n the place o f ethnics, and this isolated
mintage is most naturally considered the foundation-issue o f a new settlement. I t may,
moreover, be important that the arch at Orange bears numerous representations o f
14
prows very like those which appear on these coins. I t is, however, unfortunately
impossible to corroborate this attribution, which must therefore remain conjectural.
1
Ritterling, l.c. 1376, etc.; cf. von Domaszewski, Kromayer, Hermes, xxx, 1896, pp. 1 ff.; Jullian, l.c.
l.c. p. 75, fig. 90. p. 31; Grenier, ES. in, p. 486.
2
Ritterling, l.c. 9 Kornemann 95; cf. Chatelain, l.c. pp. 10 ff.
3
Jullian, l.c. p. 32 n. 2, correcting Reinach, 1 0
E.g. BMCR. pi. CI, 1.
Comptes-rendus de VAcadimie des Inscriptions, 1909, Ritterling, l.c. 1375.
1 1

pp. 513 f. 1 2
Jullian, l.c. p. 32 n. 4(??).
4
Ritterling, I.e.-1439. 1 3
The boar on a vexillum represented on the
5 Ibid. 1457. 6
Ibid. 1437. Orange arch has nothing to do with the colony,
7 Cic. Fam. x, 30. but is part of a captive trophy (Chatelain, I.e. pp.
8
Carcopino, Histoire Romaine, n, p. 986 n. 332; 52, 71).
cf. Meyer, Casars Monarchic, p. 488 n.; Rice 1 4
Not those of river craft: Desjardins, Bulletin de
Holmes, The Roman Republic, ill, p. 322 n.; pace la Sociite Centrale des Architectes, 1883, p. 11.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 211

4. H I S P A N I A T A R R A C O N E N S I S :Celsa, Ilici, Carthago Nova,

Caesaraugusta, Tarraco
The coinage o f this province, as the section concerning its municipia has suggested
(p. 154)> stands i n need o f a number o f reattributions. The only pre-Augustan coinage
of a Tarraconensian colony was made b y COL(pnia) VIC(trix) I V L ( i a ) LEP(zVa),
1
whose attribution to Celsa b y Lorichs and Grotefend is convincingly defended by
H i l l . M . Aemilius Lepidus twice governed Nearer Spain, i n 48-47 and 44-42 B . C .
2 3

5
Hill finds a number o f models o f the years 46-44* for the heads o f Minerva and
V i c t o r y ; and a head o f Venus (?) (Pi. V I I , 21)? is particularly similar i n arrangement
6

to the bust o f Diana on the foundation-issue o f municipium Emporiae in 45-44 (p. 154). 8

Like Sutherland,? H i l l nevertheless prefers the first governorship o f Lepidus for the
foundation o f Celsa. But its attribution by A d c o c k " to 44 at the earliest is confirmed,
10

not only by the numismatic comparisons, but also by the absence o f other Julian
foundations (p. 461) and other Roman city-issues that can be ascribed to 47; both,
however, occurred i n 45 and 44. The use o f portrait-models of this same period strongly
suggests that one of the issues celebrates the deductio, though i t is difficult to say which
1 2
of the three colleges o f PR(aefecti pro) I I V I R ( w ) should be selected for this distinc-
tion. L . Nep. and L . Sura —who coin w i t h the head o f Venus (Pi. V I I , 21)—are the
13

14
most probable choice, since their pieces are much the heaviest. I n the Republic there
1
is only one well-known Sura, namely P. Cornelius Lentulus the Catilinarian. * The
16
only quadrans o f the group, signed by the aediles L . Cal(purnius) and Sex. Nig(er)—
1
whose names also appear on one o f the two semisses !—is probably part o f the founda-
tion-issue, to judge from equally isolated b i - and tri-denominational coinages else-
where (pp. 216, 165). I t is interesting to note that Sex. Niger omits his nomen—
because this, as an Augustan piece shows, was Pompeius (p. 213). But the family was
staunchly Caesarian, a Q. Pompeius Niger from Italica having fought w i t h distinction
under Julius i n 45. 18

The type o f a bull here makes its debut on Roman city-issues. N o w its second
appearance was on a foundation-issue o f Calagurris i n 28, as a play on the name o f the
adsignator and governor T . Statilius Taurus (p. 165). I t is not impossible that the same
1
Blatter fur Miin^freunde, IV, 1844, PP- 2 jections of Lenormant (La monnaie dans Vantiquiti,
2
P- 79 J pace Vives iv, p. 102. in, pp. 227 f.) to the interpretation as praefectus.
3
Cf. von Rohden, PW. 1, 556 f. 13
BM: Hill, pi. Xn, 8.
4
E.g. BMCR. pi. CI, 1, 9-10, Lin, 13-14. 1 4
Cf. Hill, p. 186.
5
Hiii, i . xn, .
P 7
'5 Cf. Miinzer, PW. (zR.\ iv, 963. L . Naevius
6
- <*•
I b i d
7 Ibid. 8. Sura coins at Buthrotum (p. 269).
For a fourth bust, of Pax, vide PI. VII, 20.
1 6
Instituto de Valencia de Don Juan; Hill, pi.
9
BIS. p. 128. *° p. . 7 9
Xn, 10, cf. p. 80 n. 32.
" CAH. ix, p. 708; cf. n. 3. V Berlin: Hill, pi. Xn, 9.
2
Hill (p. 81 n. 4) successfully overcomes the ob- 18
Bell. Hisp. 25. 4.
212 THE ROMAN COLONIES
man was legatus pro praetore o f Tarraconensis under Lepidus, and his adsignator at
Celsa, i n 4 4 - 4 2 : we have no record o f Taurus's activity before his consulship i n 37,
1
and the Fasti o f the province show an appropriate gap. The undoubted play upon his
name at Calagurris makes this guess not unplausible; nor is i t contradicted by numerous
later appearances of bulls, since the type was i n any case appropriate to Roman founda-
tions, and alluded, moreover, to Caesar's tutelary goddess Venus and to Augustus's
nickname Thurinus? •*
There remain—before 36, the terminus ante quern for coinage w i t h Lepida—two
colleges o f PR(aefecti pro) I I V I R ( w ) , 3 one o f aediles, and one o f PR(aefecti pro)
4

QyW(quennalibus)t Saguntum has provided an example o f a city where praefecti

were regularly appointed to represent distinguished duoviri (p. 159); the present issues
indicate that this kind of praefectura was already instituted i n the forties. The Otacilii
6
owed the revival o f their repute to the social upheavals o f the period; P. Sal. Pa. may
be a relative o f T . Salvius Parianus who was duovir o f Nola i n A . D . 29.7
8
These coins are slightly heavier than semuncial; subsequent issues, on the other
hand, are based on the lighter standard used also at municipium Emporiae. These do
not occur until c. 25 H . C . or later, since no models earlier than t h e ' Caesaraugusta'* and
10
' Patricia' groups occur. Characteristic of colonies is the invariable appearance o f the
princeps' portrait, and no less instructive the gradual transition o f the obverse legend
from C O L . V . I . CELSA, I I V I R " through A V G V S . , C. V . I . C E L S . " to the orthodox
1
A V G V S T V S D I V I F. * The semisses have no type; asses represent,with one exception,
the usual bull—imitated from the earlier issues, since i t was as applicable to a deductio,
and to the Julian house, as to T . Taurus. The single exception is provided by a coin
14
w i t h pontifical emblems: this is usually ascribed to Carthago N o v a , but has obverse
1 16
dies that are similar to, * i f not the same as, those o f Celsan assess I t was struck by
the quinquennales C. Varius Rufus and Sex. Julius Pollio. I n view o f the ubiquity o f
officials o f this rank, who actually appear on the earlier coins o f Celsa itself besides on
18
many other colonial coinages, i t is strange that the arrangement o f Heiss, who could
speak o f quinquennaux, magistrats speciaux a Carthago Nova, has not been finally
1
Cf. Wilsdorf, Fasti Hispaniarum Provinciarum, Hill, pi. XIII, 4.
1 0 1 1
Ibid. pi. Xin, 1.
Diss. Leipzig, 1878, pp. 133 f.; see below, p. 379, Ibid. 2.
12 J
3 Ibid. 4.
for the division of Spain at this date into two Vives iv, pp. 34 ff., no. 28.
14

legationes. See also p. 381. '* Hill, p. 84.

2
Cf. Blanchet, Comptes-rendus de VAcad&mie des Lorichs, Stockholm Cat. p. 3.
16

Inscriptions, 1919, p. 134; Mattingly, BMC. Imp. *7 It must be admitted that its chemical content is
p. cxv. different from that of a Celsan coin analysed
3 P. Sal. Pa., M. Fulvi.; C. Balbo, L . Porcio. (Spectrogram 49, cf. 14): but there is no reason to
4
L . Semp. Max., M. Caec. 5 M. Ful., C. Otac. believe that the two specimens tested were con-
6
Syme, RR. p. 84 n. 6. 7 CIL. xi, 1233. temporary. Finds are extensive butriothelpful: cf.
8
280*5, 57*5> 203*5 grains (BM).
2
Visedo Molt6, MJSEA. XLI [VI, 1920-1], p. 10.
9 Hill, pi. XIII, 1 f. For Sydenham's attribution P. 273. They appear also at many other cities;
18

of the denarii to Celsa, see pp. 122, 222. see references on p. 508.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 213
1
abandoned. Besides this pair o f quinquennales, five colleges o f duoviri and one o f
2
aediles strike for Augustus. Their chronology is beyond reach, since the only dated
coin (5-3 B . C . ) still uses the 'Patricia* models for its portraits; but there are no asses
from the latest 'Lugdunese' models.
Some o f the magistrates' names call for note. The clemency o f the regime—or the
treachery o f men like the Nigri—is well illustrated by the presence o f four Pompeii,
3 4
who owe their citizenship either to Pompey or to his father: they are the leading
family o f Celsa. A governor o f Octavian, Cn. Domitius Calvinus (39-36),* is recalled
by the duovir Cn. Domitius; and a number o f obscure names no doubt also indicate
the reward for loyalty to the Caesarian party, and the rise o f the lower classes to the
6
surface of the muddy waters o f the revolution. L . Baggius may well be the L . Baggius
7
Methodicus o f a Roman inscription at about the same date; the gentile name o f L .
8
Cor. Terrenus is paralleled by a single epigraphic record from Genava. The cognomen
of L . Pompeius Bucco, which recurs w i t h the gentilicium Vetilius on a Tiberian issue,*
10
is the same as a word usually employed to describe half-wits on the stage; but the
name may be a distinct Celtic formation." There is record o f a late Republican (perhaps
Caesarian) senator called Licinius Bucco." The Junii Hispani were well known in
13 14 1
Spain, like the T i t i i Hispani; the name Secundinus was also common there. * Flavii
16
Festi appear in Italy in the third century.
The city o f Ilici should be credited w i t h a group o f three misread and unrecognised
17
issues, made during the fourteen years o f its existence as a colonia Iulia:
1%
(1) C. Maeci. quinq., L . Appulfei]. quinq.
1
(2) C. Maeci. quinq., L . Appul. quin. II. ?
20
(3) C. Maeci. Ilvir quinq., Q. Acilius Ilvir quin.
1
Hill, p. 83; L. Sura, L. Pompei. Bucco; L. Cor. 13
CIL. 11, 5924 (Acci: trib. Pupinia), 1166
Terren., M. Jun. Hisp.; Sex. Cethego, Q. Pomp. (Hispalis: trib. Quirina).
Secundino; L. Baggio, M\ Flavio Festo; Cn. 1 4
Cf. Syme, Papers of the British School at Rome,
Domiti., C. Pompeio. xiv (NS. 1), 1938, p. 14 n. 71. The cognomen of
2
L. Aufid. Pansa, Sex. Pomp. Nigro. Varius Hispanus (van Nostrand, ES. 111, p. 144)
3
Cf. Cic. Pro Balbo 9. 24, 18. 41; Stevenson, was originally derogatory (cf. Sherwin-White,
RPA. p. 92; Sutherland, RIS. pp. 96, 233 n. 23. p. 179).
4
Stevenson, l.c.; Sherwin-White, p. 130. x
5 CIL. 11, 2534, 2877, 2933, 4569, 4970, 5366.
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 46.
5 1 6
C / Z . x i , 1354.
6
Cf. Rostovtzeff, Melanges Pirenne, 1926, p. 1 7
For the colony, vide Kornemann 182.
421. 1 8
Vives iv, p. 30 ('Carthago Nova').
CIL. vi, 12819; cf. Schulze, p. 204.
7 1 9
BM. This cannot represent II[vir] quin., which
Y / £ . XII, 2632; cf. Schulze, p. 278 n'. 1.
8
is never found inverted.
Hill, p. 83.
9 3 0
Vives iv, p. 34. 7. The accepted reading
1 0
Cf. Milchofer, PW. 11, 1918. ACILIVS IIVIR QVINQ. is incorrect, since the
11
Thes. Ling. Lat. I I , p. 2229. omission of the praenomen here would be very
1 2
Valerius Maximus, vm, 3. 2; cf. Munzer, PW. curious, whereas QVIN. is a frequent abbreviation:
xiii, 232; Thes. Ling. Lat. 11, Lc. it occurs with QVINQ. on (2).
214 THE ROMAN COLONIES
These have been usually ascribed, together w i t h so many heterogeneous and incon-
gruous pieces, to Carthago Nova: but there is a total lack o f evidence for such an
attribution. The identification of this Acilius w i t h one at that city is worthless for three
reasons: first, the coins on which the latter appears belong, not to Carthago Nova, but
to a Sicilian town, probably Thermae Himeraeae (p. 237); secondly, that personage is
called Lucius, and the praenomen Quintus on these coins has escaped notice; thirdly,
1
Acilius is a very frequent name, especially i n Spain. O n the other hand, Maecii are
very rare: and the existence o f an inscription from Ilici w i t h A V G V S T O D I V I F. C.
M A E C I V S C. F. CELER D E D I T D E D I C A V I T * is strong evidence i n favour o f
attribution to that town. Moreover, the type o f (3), a single legionary eagle, reappears
on the later issues o f Ilici, and the galley o f (1) suits its proximity to the sea. N o w a
very similar galley appears on the foundation-coinage o f municipium Dertosa i n c.
30-28 B . C . (p. 158): and not only is such a date entirely consistent w i t h the style o f the
present pieces, but an inscription records that T . Statilius Taurus, governor c. 29-28,
3
was the patronus o f I l i c i , and therefore, i n accordance w i t h the Lex Coloniae Genetivae
Iuliae (p. 34), i n all likelihood one o f its founders. I t is i n the highest degree probable
that the first coin o f C. Maecius and L . Appuleius celebrates the deductio o f Ilici as
colonia Iulia at that date, and so belongs to the category o f foundation-issues. The
appearance o f quinquennales presents no obstacle to this view, since these officials
naturally occur on the foundation-issues of cities which had received Latinitas five, or
a multiple o f five, years earlier—like Saguntum and Carthago Nova (pp. 163, 217).
Moreover, i f a lustrum occurred i n 28, the promotion to the ius Latinum can be
ascribed w i t h great probability to 48, a plausible year for bestowal by Caesar. Municipia
Calagurris and Osca, too, were enfranchised i n the latter half o f Statilius's governor-
ship (pp. 165, 167), and, by their analogy, i t may be supposed that he was, a t Ilici
also, technically adsignator to the founder and possessor of imperium maius, Octavian.
The leading citizen o f the new foundation was clearly C. Maecius C. f. Celer.
4
A M . Maecius became a senator early i n this period, and M . Maecius Celer was to
give the family its first consulate i n A . D . I O I * — a L . Roscius Aelianus Maecius Celer
6
having reached the same distinction i n the previous year. Statius describes M . Maecius
Celer as nobilis Ausoniae.. .armipotentis alumnus!—-which the probably servile origin
8
of the earlier M . Maecius renders suspiciously unplausible. Whether they were
members o f the ancient Latin clan o f the Maecii? or not, i t is clear that the family
owed its emergence to its financial activities at Delos at the beginning o f the first
1 0
century B . C . The move to Rome is characteristic o f the early years o f the princi-
pate." I t is interesting to note the predominance o f Maecius at Ilici, which is paralleled
1
Vide CIL. 11, index, s.v. 6
Cf. Groag, PW. 1, 1116. 7 Silvae in, 2. 20.
* CIL. n. 3555. 3 JLS. 893. 8
Plutarch, Cicero 27; cf. Syme, L c
4
Cf. Syme, Papers of the British School at Rome, 9 Cf. Miinzer, PW. x i v , 232. 1 0
Ibid,
xiv, 1938, p. 14 n. 65. 1 1
Cf. West, Imperial Roman Spain, The Objects
5 Cf. Fluss, PW. x i v , 234. of Trade, p. 79, etc.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 215
by hegemonies o f the Pompeii at Celsa, Valerii at Calagurris, Aelii at Osca, Caecilii at
Turiaso, and Sempronii at Bilbilis. L . Maecius's colleague L . Appuleius was probably
a cliens o f L . Appuleius Decianus, who was quaestor to Sex. Pompeius i n Spain i n
45-44 (p. 24).
The next stage i n the history o f Ilici is illustrated b y semisses w i t h Augustus's
portrait:
(4) A V G V S T V S D I V I F . — L . M A N L I O T . P E T R O N ( i o ) I I V I R ( w ) , C(oIoni)
1

2
C(oloniae) lL(icis) A(ugustae). Aquila and vexillum.
(5) The same, or I M P . C A E S A R I D I V I F. A V G V S T O — Q . P A P I R . C A R .
3 4

Q. T E R E . M O N T . H V I R . Q., Q(olonia) l(ulia) lL(ici) A(ugusta). Tetrastyle temple

inscribed on architrave I V N O N I .

The heads are i n the 'Patricia' style,* which suggests that Ilici, like municipia
Bilbilis and Ilerda (pp. 170, 306), was refounded as Augusta during the princeps* visit
6

to Spain in c. 15-14. This conclusion is corroborated by the termination of the coinage

of the Julian colony i n the quinquennalian year 18-17, which (3) must be assigned.
to

It is also noteworthy that (4), alone o f these five issues, is signed, not b y quinquennales,
but by duoviru This suggests a special occasion i n a year when no lustrum was due:
and this is suitably supplied b y a restitutio b y Augustus i n 15-14. L . Manlius and T .
Petronius, then, coin to commemorate this refoundation, and so Ilici, like Dyme and
Panormus (pp. 265,190),lias more than one inauguratory issue. Indeed, i t has a third:
(5) should almost certainly be attributed to the quinquennalian year 14-13 immediately
following the refoundation, and so belongs to the curious category o f second issues from
the foundation-fund (p. 291). Here, as at eight other cities, a coinage o f this type
terminates the activity o f the mint under Augustus. One o f the quinquennales o f (5)
recalls by name the decayed family o f the Papirii Carbones (cf. p. 244).?
The coinage o f Carthago Nova now assumes a more homogeneous appearance, more
manageable proportions, and a chronological arrangement more uniform w i t h
neighbouring colonies. I t includes asses, without an ethnic and w i t h portraits modelled
on late Lugdunese denarii} o f M . Postum. Albin., L . Porci. Capit. quinq .9 M . Postu-
10
mius Albinus reappears, i n a second tenure, w i t h P. Turullius as his colleague, on
11
semisses which bear the ethnic V[R](&?) l(ulia) N(ova) K(artkago). The two remaining
1
Vives iv, p. 41. 1-3. 1 0
It is interesting to note the appearance of a
2
Cf.,Thesaurus Ling. Lat. HI, p. 1705. name only known to us in the person of Caesar's
3
Vives, l.c 4. 4
Ibid. 5. assassin, whose origin is obscure (cf. Syme, RR.
5
Cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 378, etc. p. 95).
6
For the principles involved by restitutio (i.e. 1 1
Vives 31. VRBS is found also on municipal
usually a second deductfo)see below, p. 265. coins of Osca (p. 167). An unusual variety of the
7
For the epithet, acknowledgments to R. Syme. ethnic exists here on a series of Tiberius with
BMC. Imp. Aug. 517, 519. I N V(rbe) l(uiia) N(pva) K(arthagine); cf. Lorichs.
9
Vives iv, pp. 34 ff. 26. Recherches numismatiques, p. 111.
2l6 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
Augustan quinquennalian pairs are Juba Rex Jubae f., Cn. Atellius Ponti., and Rex
Ptol., C. Laetilius Apalus.* The absence o f the names o f the praefecti who represented
the Mauretanian princes is a distinguishing-feature from the series attributed above to
3
municipium Saguntum. I t is known from an inscription that Juba I I held the quin-
quennalian duovirate at Carthago Nova, and the coin o f his son Ptolemy—whose
4
royal blood already entitled him to be called rex by Roman usage —must be assigned
here owing to its similarity o f style and genre. The latter issue is approximately dat*
able b y its use o f no less than three different portrait-models o f Augustus, namely
6
denarii o f the * Caesaraugusta'5 and * Patricia' types, and another from the Roman mint
of c. 13 B.C.7 The colleagues o f the two princes are recorded by inscriptions. The
fishermen and small tradesmen o f Carthago Nova dedicated a shrine o f the Lares
8
Augustales and Mercury to C. Laetilius M . f. Apalus, and freedmen o f Cn. Atellius
appear elsewhere i n Tarraconensis:? he was perhaps the Cn. Atellius Cn. f. Pal.
10
Longus who visited or resided at Smyrna.
A n earlier series includes two denominations:
C O N D V C . (or C O N T V C . " ) M A L L E O L . , hand (Pi. V I I , 1 8 ) — I I V I R Q V I N Q .
bull;
C O N D . M A L . hammer—IIVIR. Q V I N Q shield."
The shield is imitated from a Spanish (?) silver group of c. 33 B . C . (p. 60 n. 7). The present
aes coins do not provide any positive evidence for attribution to Carthago Nova: it can
13
only be said that style and—apparently—provenance seem to favour this, and that the
14 1
name Malleolus suggests the gens Pqblicia, * o f which a member, C. Poplicius C. f.,is
16
recorded on a pre-Augustan inscription o f that t o w n . Perhaps this family owed their
name to a Cn. Poblicius Malleolus who coined i n Spain as quaestor to Cn. Pompeius
1
jun. ? As for the other name, the single specimen w i t h C O N T V C . appears to rule out
1
the possibility o f reference to a conductor. * C O N T V C . must represent a Celtiberian
10 0 1 2 3
name such as Contuccius, Contucius,* Contuciancus,* Contouca* and Contoutqs.*
Possibly the hand may be a pun on C O N T V C , i n the same way as the hammer is a

Vives, l.c 15.

1
Heiss, Delgado, Hubner and Vives are
1 3

2
Vives, l.c. 24. unanimous.
3
CIL. II, 3417; cf. Sebastian, De patronis etc., Cf. CIL. 11, 174 (Olisipo).
1 4

Diss. Halle, 1884, p. 12. 5 Cf. Heiss, p. 274 n. 3.

x

* Cf. Livy 11, 2. 11, 3. 5, XLV, 48. 9; de la CIL. 11, 3433.

16

Blanchere, Description de VAfrique du Nord, mus. i BMCR. 11, 364. 72.

x

Oran, p. 30. Contuctor could not be considered as a parallel

18

5 BMC. Imp. Aug. 343. to the Spanish forms adeems (CIL. 11, 4514), atnati
6
Ibid. 440. 7 Ibid. 106. (ibid. 4332), etc.
8
CIL. 11,5929. 9 CIL. vi, 555; cf. Fronto, Ad amicos, 11, 4.
X

9 Ibid. 3449-3451. CIL. vi, 1706.

2 0
CIL. 11, 3120.
2 1

10
CIL. in, 415; cf. Hatzfeld, p. 110 n. 10. Holder, Altceltischer Sprachschati, 1, NachtrSge,
2 2

1 1
Berlin. 1277.
1 2
Vives iv, pp. 34 ff. Ibid. 1, 1109.
2 3
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 217
play upon the name o f his colleague Malleolus. A t all events the native name suggests
a recently enfranchised town, just as the shield and style indicate a date not long after
36. These considerations, too, are suitable to Carthago Nova, which was a colonia
1
Iulia as likely to have been founded by Octavian as b y Caesar, The coinage is not
repeated for nearly twenty years and is thus a very likely candidate for inclusion among
the foundation-issues. I t has been shown that the presence o f quinquennales is no
obstacle, since Carthago Nova, like Ilici and many other cities, had probably attained
Latinity under Caesar i n c. 48 or c. 45-44. W e therefore have the choice o f c. 35-34,
c. 33, or c. 30-29 for the foundation: the type o f a bull suggests that T . Statilius
Taurus was the founder i n 29—the year before-his foundation o f Calagurris (p. 165).
I f he was the deductor i n that year, this inaugural issue w i l l precede by some
fifteen years the next coinages from the mint. These include four colleges only, since
the majority o f the coins that appear at Carthago Nova i n all current lists must be
ejected—to Saguntum, Celsa, Ilici, Thermae Himeraeae (?) and Pella: other writers
3
have already correctly reascribed coins to Carteia* and Cnossus, and have rightly
dismissed (but wrongly assigned) an official series w i t h the type o f a shield, and an
issue o f colonia Latina Nabrissa (pp. 121, 473).
The most extensive Augustan colonial series i n the province is that o f Caesaraugusta
(Saldubia). I t includes four denominations i n 'bronze', namely asses—weighing less
4
than at Ilici and elsewhere —dupondii} semisses and quadrantes. By the analogy o f all
other Augustan foundations i n the province, the earliest issue probably commemor-
ates the deductio: this distinction is likely, for iconographical reasons, to fall to the coins
6
of Q. Lutatius and M . Fabius. These use as portrait-models the denarii which have
7
consequently also been ascribed to Caesaraugusta: but the falsity o f the attribution,
and o f the principle on which i t is based, has been sufficiendy demonstrated (p. 122).
However, the use o f these models, which gave way to the 'Patricia' class i n c. 19 B . C . ,
8
makes it probable that Caesaraugusta was founded in about that year rather than 15-14.9
10
The settlers were veterans from the Spanish garrisons. By the analogy o f Gades, en-
franchised at the same date (p. 171), i t may be assumed that Augustus was the deductor,
and Agrippa the adsignator who installed the first duoviri Q. Lutatius and M . Fabius.
11
The name of the former suggests a clientela of the Q. Catuli during the late Republic:
1
Hiibner, PW. in, 1624 (correcting himself in 6
Madrid; Hill, pi. X I V , 2.
La Arqueologiq. de Esparia, p. 174, and Kornemann BMC. Imp. Aug. 334, 336, 342, etc.
7

89, Taberner, QAS. xvm, 1939, p. 16, Sutherland, 8

Cf. Hiibner, PW. in, 1287.
BIS. p. 123). 9 As Ritterling, PW. xn, 1240.
1
Vives iv, p. 26. 50 (Institute de Valencia de 1 0
The standards of the fourth, sixth and ninth
Don Juan), correcting Lorichs, Recherches munis- legions on some pieces (Hill, p. 95) should, as
matiques, p. 121, numerous analogies suggest, be interpreted in
3
Heiss, p. 275. this way, rather than as indicative of an actual
4
9'5 grains (av. 5;.
20
garrison from these legions, as Sutherland, RIS.
5
413 grains (av. 3); unlikely therefore ta be p. 150 seems to imply.
sestertii, pace Hill, p. 188. For these vide Munzer, PW. xn, 2082 ff.
1 1
2l8 THE ROMAN COLONIES
M . Fabius may belong to a family whose enfranchisement dates back to the third
or second century B . C .
Subsequent denarius-portraits attributed to Patricia or Lugdunum are copied on the
1
undated issues, w i t h usual types, o f seven further duoviral colleges. Heads o f the
same classes appear on dated coins o f 6 B . C . and 8-1 B . C . , 3 the latter o f which has a
2

titulature, I M P . A V G V S T V S X I V . , that is o f some interest for constitutional history

(pp. 415,440). A dupondius o f 4-3 B . C . o f another college represents Augustus stand-
4
ing w i t h his grandsons; a later one, w i t h A V G V S T V S D I V I F. and the standards and
titles o f three legions instead o f a portrait, is struck by a. duovir L . Juventius Lupercus
acting w i t h T i . Clodius Flavus, praef. Germanici.* The colonists i n Spain looked well
6
ahead i n their flattery o f the domus principis. T i . Clodius Flavus was no doubt a
Spanish freedman and client o f Tiberius 7—rather than o f Germanicus, whose original
8
praenomen was probably Nero. Other Clodii Flavi appear at several towns i n the
same province;? and Flavus is a common designation for Spaniards. A man o f
10
the same name as this praefectus appears at Rome within the next century. The
duoviri include some old Italian names. Amiturnum was probably the home o f the
12
A l l i a r i i , " Tusculum o f the noble Juventii: the moneyer o f the latter name is no doubt
a relative o f the Spanish mine-owner T . Juventius.^ A T . Cervius appears w i t h other
14 15
members o f his clan at A u f i n u m ; other Cervii include a Sabine neighbour o f Horace
16 x 18
and a resident at Carthago N o v a . The Verrii 7 and A m p i i , too, were ancient Italian
1
clans. M . Porcius no doubt recalls the large Spanish clientela o f Cato. ? Also remarkable
20 21
are two cognomina. Alsanus is derived from the Venetian river-name Alsa, and Lancia
22 2
recalls, i n the same province, personal signatures L A N C I Q . and L A N C . * — a l l are
24
derived from the name o f the Asturian town Lancia, o f which they were probably
2
the freedmen. *
Alone o f the Roman city-mints i n the province, Tarraco does not appear to have a
foundation-coinage. This deficiency is due to its establishment, as a civilian colonia

Hill, p. 88: C. Alsano, T. Cervio; L. Cassio,

1
% CIL. ix, 4500. For the name, cf. Schulze, p. 416.
11

C. Valerio Fen.; M\ Kan., L. Titia; M\ Kaninio, Cic. Pro Plane. 19: cf. Afzelius, Classka et
1 2

L. Titio iter.; Q. Maximo iter., C. Valentino; C. Mediaevalia, 1, 1938, p. 71.

Sabino, P. Varo; Q. Statio, M. Fabricio. CIL. 11,3280a; cf. van Nostrand, ES. 111, p. 140.
13

Ibid. p. 89: C. Alliario, T . Verrio.

2
CIL. ix, 3392; cf. Schulze, p. 234.
14

3 Ibid.: M. Porci., Cn. Fad. 5 Hor. Sat. 11, 6. 77.

X
CIL. II, 3433.
1 6

Ibid.: Cn. Dom. Ampian., C. Vet. Lancia.

4
'7 Cf. Schulze, p. 278. Ibid. p. 257.
1 8

5 Ibid. p. 90. 9 Cf. Stevenson, RPA. pp. 69 f.

X

Tiberius is also honoured on a semis, which,

6
Cf. Hubner, MLI. p. 42.
2 0

like a quadrans, lacks the signature of magistrates. Pliny, NH. in, 126; cf. Hulsen, PW. 1, 1638.
2 1

Originally Ti. Claudius Nero: ILS. 95,144-7.

7
CIL. 11, 3088.
22

Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, iv, 287.

8
Ibid. 4970. 258 a.
2 3

9 CIL. 11, 2486, 3626 (a man of Segontia at Schulten, PW. xn, 621.
2 4

Saetabis). 5 Cf. Mommsen, Zeitschrift fur geschichtliche

2

10
CIL. vi, 15067; cf. also 15066. Rechtswissenschaft, xv, 1848, p. 297.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 219
1
Iulia Victrix Triumphalis, as early as the lifetime o f Caesar, when Spanish communi-
2
ties had not yet been permitted to commemorate their foundation i n this way. The
3
mint does not open until after 2 B . C . , when i t honours Caius and Lucius on light asses
4
and semisses , on the former w i t h Augustus, on the latter (with a type imitated from the
6
denarii**) as G E M I N I (Pi. V I I , 19)—perhaps w i t h reference to the Dioscuri, as on an
unpublished official series o f Cyprus (p. 144). The next issue portrays Tiberius before
8
his accession.? The attribution o f the ethnic C. V . T . is confirmed by provenance. This
coinage has an unusually 'imperial' character appropriate to this new and impressive
0
capital-city. I t is noteworthy that the share o f the colony i n its coinage is limited to
the ethnic, which itself commemorates the triumphs of Julius; moreover, T R . P O T . on
the asses—extremely rare i n the local series—is a further sign o f liaison w i t h authority
(p. 446).
Thus the Tarraconensian colonies offer no parallel to the long early Augustan series
of at least three municipia i n the province. W i t h the exceptions o f the inaugural issue
attributed to Carthago Nova and a few colleges at colonia Lepida, they produce no
coinage at all during the triumvirate, and probably none until at least c. 25. Even then
there can be no question o f a general authorisation, since no coins are known o f a
considerable number o f Julian and Augustan colonies (p. 297). Tarraco, established i n
Julius's lifetime, alone does not begin its coinage w i t h a foundation-issue. But i t is
paralleled i n this respect by a number o f the dictator's colonies i n Baetica.

5. H I S P A N I A B A E T I C A : Acci, Romula, Patricia, Traducta

10
This province has coinage from four Julian colonies, but, as at Tarraco but no other
city i n Nearer Spain, there are no foundation-issues among them. Tarraco was estab-
lished by Julius (p. 219), and the first foundation-coinage i n Spain (at Celsa) does not
occur until after his death (p. 211). The five colonies i n Baetica could therefore be
attributed to his lifetime; but they may also have been posthumous. A t all events they
are likely to have been founded within the forties.
1
Dio XLIH, 39; cf. Schulten, PW. (2R.), iv, 2399; Cf. Vilar6, MJSEA. cxvi [v, 1930], p. 115;
8

Hiibner, ML1. p. 539; Meyer, Cdsars Monarchic, Oliva, ibid, LXXXVIII [VI, 1924-5], pp. 77 f.
p. 486. 9 Cf. Hiibner, Hill, ll.cc
* The Caesarian foundation ^>uld possibly be An attribution to Hasta Regia by Florez and
1 0

Latin (cf. Sherwih-White, p. 177): but if this had Eckhel (DN. 1, p. 15; cf. Delgado 111, p. 84. 36) is
been the case, the deductio would have to be attributed accepted by Miss Newby (p. 83), who Ignores
to 16-13 « «> when the absence of a foundation- Hubner's demonstration of its falsity (CIL. 11,
B c

coinage would be inexplicable. p. 175). Miss Newby (p. 84) also cites from
3
BM: Hill, p. 48, pi. V, 5. Eckhel (DN. 1, p. 25) an obviously non-existent
4
BM: Hill, p. 48, pi. V, 4. colonial coin of Munda, in the face of protest from
5
BMC. Imp. Aug. 513 ff. E. T . Newell. Lorichs (Recherches numismatiques,
6
Eckhel, DN. 1, p. 58. p. 112) has an equally disastrous attribution to col.
7
Hill, p. 48. Onuba.
220 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
A n issue o f Acci, which appears to have been at this time i n the provincia Vlterior*
is probably the earliest colonial issue o f the province, since its portrait—inscribed
4
CAESAR AVG.—seems to be modelled on Emeritan denarii;* a second as
( A V G V S T V S D I V I F.) uses the regular' Patricia' head. Except for one semis o f the
latter category w i t h the type o f pontifical emblems,* every coin o f Augustus emphasises,
by legionary eagles and standards, the deductio o f the colony; the conjunction for this
purpose o f L(egiones) I I . I . , specified on the coins, accounts for the title Gemina found
6
in the ethnic C. I . G. A C C I . The Julian epithet 7 indicates that these pieces are not
8
inauguratory. They are somewhat heavier than semuncial.
The remaining three colonies do not coin before c. 19 B . C . , since i n each case the
earliest portrait-model is o f the * Patricia' class. This terminus post quern is relevant to
the point made by Sutherland,* that the beginning o f the principate for the Spaniards
was the visit o f Augustus i n 15-14 B . C . rather than the constitutional changes o f 27 or
23. The occasion o f the princeps* presence is further suggested by the appearance on
each series o f the formula PERM(issu) AVG(usti). When Augustus founded muni-
cipium Italica—where this also occurs (p. 173)—he presumably took the opportunity
to permit coinage at a few older foundations also. This sanction, i f attributed to the
time o f his visit, corresponds w i t h the most probable date for the transference o f
Baetica to the senate (p. 134). I t gives a striking demonstration o f the activity o f the
auctoritas principis (p. 435)—which, incidentally, was not exercised i n so downright
a fashion i n consular provinces, where the governors' own permission is recorded
(p. 232). The three colonies accorded the privilege o f celebrating his visit i n this way
(but o f little or no subsequent coinage while Augustus still lived) were Romula,
Patricia and Traducta—as the cities o f Hispalis, Corduba and Ioza were now called.
10 11
Romula only strikes under Augustus one semis, w i t h cornucopiae and globe; Patricia
issues all five of the Roman denominations and includes the common types o f legionary
13
eagle and standards," and pontifical emblems. ( N o confirmation is, or is likely to be,
14
obtainable for Cohen's citation o f a piece bearing the name o f the fifth and tenth
1
legions.) O n the same standard is the coinage o f Traducta * which is based on a bronze
16
as somewhat heavier than the copper one at Rome. The ethnic I V L I A TRAD(ucta)
testifies to the confusing practice o f omitting the status o f cities i n their titulature.

1
Pliny, NH. 111, 1; Kornemann 91; Ritterling, attributes Acci to Caesar; cf. Meyer, p. 484, for
PW. XII, 1215. Romula.
2
Albertini, Les divisions administratives de 8
277, 241, 221, 198 grains (BM).
VEspagne romaine; Sutherland, JRS. xxiv, 1934, 9 JRS. xxiv, 1934, p. 31; cf. Syme, RR. p. 324.
p. 38; id. RIS. p. 239 n. 15, attributes the change to 1 0
Kornemann 83.
the last few years B.c.—after the date of these coins. 1 1
Vives, p. 220, pi. C L X V I I , 1.
3 Berlin, Hall colls.: Vives iv, p. 120. 1. " Vives iv, p. 118. 2. X
3 Ibid. 4.
4
Ibid. 4. 5
Ibid. 5.
14
Description historique des monnaies frappies sous
6
Kornemann, p. 528. Vempire romain, Auguste, 605.
7 van Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916, p. 103,
X
5 Strabo in, 140. 1 6
172-7 grains (av. 6).
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 221
1 2
Caius and Lucius Caesar are honoured w i t h portraits both separately and i n con-
3
junction; on the reverse the usual priestly emblems alternate w i t h local types, including
4
a bunch o f grapes, corn-ear, and tunny-fish. Pliny* wrongly states that this colony
was at Tingis: i t was, i n fact, composed o f settlers from Tingis and Zilis, but situated
6
on the coast o f Baetica. Its character suggests civitas rather than Latinitas J

6. H I S P A N I A L U S I T A N A : Emerita, Pax
Hispania Lusitana, which was probably separated from Baetica i n c. 15-14 B . C . (p. 134),
8
is represented by an extensive coinage o f its capital, colonia Augusta Emerita, founded
in 25 B.C.9 This is i n succession to the official issues o f P. Carisius (p. 119), and, like them
but unlike most colonial mintages, fulfils a certain economic role. I t maintains an
10
average standard o f c. 191 grains, which exceeds that used by the legatus, whose as,
though of bronze," was only equal i n weight to the Roman copper as (p. 300). Emerita
strikes for a longer period than other Spanish colonies, but every coin either bears the
titles of Augustus or records his permission. O n some pieces his portrait is omitted i n
12 13 14
favour o f the head o f a bearded male or a female, both river-deities. The fifth and
tenth legions, whose veterans composed the colony, are recorded w i t h the usual
15
military type, and the deductio is further commemorated by the representation o f a
16
priest ploughing. A type o f Carisius, showing the walls and gate o f the city, is
repeated on what is very likely to be a belated foundation-issue o f the colony, in c. 23.
17
But the same type appears on a c o i n whose title (P. P.) and head, modelled on the latest
1
Lugdunese denarii, * show that the issues, which seem to have started earlier than those
of the Baetican colonies (except perhaps Acci), also outlasted them by continuing
regularly until the death o f the princeps.
Another colony i n the province which coins is Pax. This, like the Baetican colonies,
1
was a Julian foundation, * but nevertheless does not coin—as its 'Patricia* portrait
shows—until after c. 19 B . C . N o doubt, by the analogy of the same colonies, the single
20
issue commemorates the visit o f Augustus to Spain. The type is a figure o f Mercury(?),
m
1
Vives iv, p. 115. 5; var. Delgado 11, 308. 1 4
On the former coin there is a jar pouring forth
2
Vives, l.c. 8,9; var. BM. Abbreviated as L V C . water, and on the second a stream of water pours
3
Ibid. 12; var. Heiss, p. 337. 6. from the mouth of the divinity, as at Saguntum
4
Vives, l.c. 10, 7, 11. (p. 162 n. 5).
5
NH. v, 1. 5 Vives iv, p. 63. 23 ff.
x

6
Strabo m, 140; Mela 11, 96; cf. Schulten, PW. 1 6
Ibid. 22. Ibid. 19.
1 7

(2/*.), vi, 1892; Windberg, ibid. 2518. 1 8

BMC. Imp. Aug. 533, etc.
7
As Taberner, QAS. xvm, 1939, p. 16. 1 9
Kornemann 180; Hiibner, La Arqueologia de
8
Ibid. p. 13. Espana, p. 174; van Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916,
9
Kornemann 177; Sutherland, RIS. p. 135. p. 101; and Sutherland, RIS. p. 125, attribute it to
1 0
Av. 9. Spectrogram 35.
1 1
Caesar, but on the inadequate grounds of its Julian
" Vives iv, p. 63. 21. 3 Ibid. 31.
X
epithet. Vives iv, p. 124.
2 0
222 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
and the only legend is P A X I V L I A . The epithet Augusta must have been added not
2
long after, but i t was not in invariable use before the principate o f Hadrian. Other
3
colonies i n Lusitania do not appear to have coined.

7. M A U R E T A N I A : Babba
Far away in the interior o f this territory was colonia Campestris Iulia Babba. Cagnat*
stated that all issues o f Augustus attributed to this mint were false or erroneously
described;5 but he ignores a coin unmistakably o f this date and mint, cited by E.
6
Babelon [reattribute to Buthrotum—M.G. 1969]:

CAESAR AVGVSTVS? bare head to right

8
L . P O M P O N p ] . L . I V L I . H V I R . Q., [ C . C ] I . B . Three-arched bridge (Pi. V I , 22).

The reverse-type occurs on later coins o f Babba, whose ethnic is visible on one o f the
0
specimens. The portrait is imitated from Eastern denarii o f 28 B . C . ; these are too early
to have been used as models for posthumous coinage, and the unique appearance o f
quinquennales further distinguishes the issue from post-Augustan ones. Since Babba
10
remained di colonia Iulia its foundation must be assigned to the years 33-28—between
the death o f Bocchus and the creation o f the title Augustus. Its date can be even more
closely fixed by the consideration o f a Neronian piece—never attributed here but, for
stylistic and iconographic reasons, clearly belonging to the series—with A V G V S T V S
(radiate head to left w i t h traits o f Nero) and D E D V C T O R (curule chair)." This is
distinguished sharply by its types from the remaining Neronian coinage o f Babba, and
is certainly commemorative: by the analogy o f similar issues celebrating the half-
centenary o f Cirta, Carthage, Tarraco and Lystra, and the quarter-centenary o f Dyrrha-
chium (p. 295), i t is impossible to resist the conclusion that i t celebrates the centenary o f
1
Strabo m, 151. But possibly not until Tiberius appear on variants of the same coin (with Rex Ptol.)
(p. 197 f. n. 6). of Carthago Nova. This last example illustrates the
* CIL. 11, 47. time-lag sometimes caused by an eclectic choice of
3
A survey of the portrait-models used by the models, which can, as has been shown, only be em-
Spanish cities, whose review is now complete, ployed to establish a terminus post quern. The same
shows convincingly the fallacy of the arguments by models are utilised with equal freedom in other
which two groups of aurei and denarii are attributed provinces. See pp. 122, 269, 83, 470.
to Hispania Tarraconensis and Baetica: (1) the 4
Klio, ix, 1914, p. 196.
'Baetican' ('Patricia') group is imitated in Tarra- 5 E.g. Morelli, Thesaurus, p. 472.
conensis at Carthago Nova, Osca, Caesaraugusta, 6
Rn. 1889, p. 506; Paris, own collection.
Calagurris, Celsa, Acci, Ilici; (2) even the Emeritan 7
Clear on Paris specimen.
group is copied both in Baetica (at Italica) and in 8
Clear on specimen in own collection.
Tarraconensis (at Saguntum and Acci); (3) non- 9 BMC. Imp. Aug. 650.
Spanish models are freely used: e.g. Eastern and 1 0
Kornemann 352.
Roman at Calagurris and Ilerda respectively; 1 1
Berlin, Vienna, Turin (Lavy, Cat. 474*)—
(4) both the 'Patricia' and'Caesaraugusta' portraits 'uncertain'.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 223
Babba's deductio. For this occasion to have fallen within Nero's principate, the colony
must have been founded i n 33-32 B . C . : i t has been suggested that a group o f colonies
in Eastern Mauretania is to be attributed to the same date (p. 60). Heraclea Pontica
will provide an example o f foundation-coinage postponed until the first decennium o f
1
the colony (p. 295): the earliness o f the present portrait-model suggests that here the
first quinquennium is celebrated. I f this is the case, the appearance o f the name Augustus
indicates a year not before 27, and the foundation must have occurred within the
year 32.
The extensive colonisation o f Mauretania at this time bears witness to Octavian's
desire to safeguard his southern flank before hostilities began: there had been serious
2
trouble only a few years earlier. I t is not surprising that the hasty deductio for military
purposes at Babba did not provide the opportunity for the regular commemorative
coinage, which was, instead, struck by the first quinquennales. A secondary motive
for the coinage may well be commemoration o f the new order o f 27. But, until the
accession o f Juba i n 25, there was no change i n the status o f Mauretania. I t does not
appear i n the Res Gestae as a province i n which colonies were founded, and the
assumption has been made that i t was, for eight years after the death o f Bocchus i n 33,
attached to Africa (p. 60): but the fact that the deductor o f Babba was not the pro-
consul o f that province, but, as the Neronian coin shows, Octavian—in anticipation
of the regular practice after 27—suggests that it was a non-provincial zone (like Galatia
after Amyntas's death) controlled by a comparatively junior officer directly under
Octavian's orders. I n 25 Babba became an enclave i n the territory o f Juba.3

8. Hippo Diarrhytus, Thapsus, Hadrumetum,

A F R I C A :
Achulla, Carthage, Cirta(?), Simitthu(?)
The coinage o f this province provides much evidence for a class o f community, the
coloniae Iuliae, w i t h which fate, and Pliny, have dealt hardly. The basic work o f
Muller scarcely refers to constitutional questions; moreover, i t omits a great many
4
of the coins, and misinterprets others. A series which he has partly collected is that o f
1
It has been shown (p. 83) that the 'Caesar- Mauritanie, p. 150) and probably the equally re-
augusta' portraits came into use well before 23-22, mote town of Ebusus (vide Campaner y Fuertes,
when the present rather unusual model would Numismdtica Balear; Vives iv, p. 14—doubted by
almost certainly have been superseded. Sutherland, RIS. p. 245)—both of which, it must
2
Cf. Gsell vm, p. 201. be assumed, existed without the customary super-
3
He probably exercisedpatrocinium in the colony, vision of governors. The coastal colonies, like Zilis,
which was quite inaccessible to the capital of any could be attached to Baetica, but Babba was much
conventus and the jurisdiction of any governor. It is too distant.
interesting to note that the general ban under 4
A remarkable piece of colonia Diana quoted by
Claudius on Roman city-coinage in the West is Boutkowski (DN. p. 214 f.: IVBA R E X diademed
remitted only in the case of Babba (Charrier, head r., countermarked, laurel-wreath—COL. I.
Description des monnaies de la Numidie et de laF. DIAN. V E T . in wreath, within P. L A E L .
224 THE ROMAN COLONIES
Hippo Diarrhytus. Like those o f Hadrumetum, the earliest issues bear no reference, b y
type or legend, to Rome, and like them they cannot have been struck much, i f at all,
before the final establishment o f the principate. They have the inscription H I P P O N E ,
L I B E R A , heads o f Astarte, Juno (?) and Ceres; figures o f Ceres, Thuso-Chusartis,
1 2
and a warrior w i t h a dog. A n unusual coin (Pi. V I , 24) reads C L A V D I O N E R O N I
H I P P O N E L I B E R A and F A B I O A F R I K A N O , accompanied by the heads respec-
tively o f Tiberius and Africanus Fabius Maximus, proconsul c. 6-5 B.C. (p. 133).
3
Pansa rightly points out that the Dative case is never eponymous; but his assumption
that such inscriptions i n honour o f proconsuls refer to a period later than that o f their
governorships is inapplicable here, where both sides o f the coin show ordinary
4
honorary dedications. Another piece bears the same ethnic (misread by Borghesi to
produce the name o f a proconsul [ C N ] . P[IS]ONE), and the heads o f Caius and Lucius,
inscribed C. L . ; on the obverse is the head o f Augustus to right, w i t h CAESAR AVG.5
6
Since Hippo is shown by inscriptions to have been a Julian colony, the epithet
8
libera on these coins has been used as an argument for a double community.? Wilmanns
0
and Kubitschek, however, maintain that a comparison o f the Masculine Gender o f the
10
other Hippo—Regius —demonstrates that here the word colonia is understood: but
they are refuted by the examples *©f municipium Hibera Julia Dertosa Ilercavonia and
municipium Augusta Bilbilis (pp. 158, 170) which show that i n these cases the epithets
were thought o f i n connection w i t h the name o f the city rather than w i t h the title o f the
rank. I t is necessary, therefore, to believe that the two Hippos were originally o f
different Genders. Thus the deduction by Kubitschek" that libera here survived as a
meaningless archaism applied to a colony is not acceptable. N o r is i t now possible to
12
consider the obsolete v i e w that there were separate classes o f coloniae liberae and

A R R V N T . PONT. IIVIR L E G . A. D I . S. F.) Muller 11, p. 167, Supply. 58. 375 a.

1

must be rejected as false for a number of reasons: * Paris; Bull. arch, du com. 1897, p. 250; ibid.
(1) Diana (Zama in the plain) was certainly not a 1901, p. cxciii.
Roman city until the second century, when it be- R.it. 1909, p. 365; Muensterberg, MBNGW.
3

came a municipium (Dessau, PW. v, 339; cf. ix, 1913, p. 161. Cf. p. 399 n. 5.
Broughton, p. 134 n. 75; CIL. vm, p. 462; Renier, Cf. Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico italiano, l,
4

Rev. arch, ix, 1852, p. 38); (2) LEG(att) A(gris) 1862, p. 174.
Dl(vidundis) will be shown elsewhere (p. 11) to be 5 Paris, Constantine (not seen by writer); cf.
a false invention of Zumpt; (3) Juba II can have had Muller, Suppl. p. 44.
no liaison of any kind with Zama in the plain: his ILS. 6782; cf. Catalogo della Mostra Augustea
6

supposed brief period of rule in Numidia has been di Romanitdy p. 567. 11.
shown to be fictitious (Gsell vm, p. 205; Syme, E.g. Broughton, pp. 210 ff.; Rostovtzeff,
7

CAH. x, p. 346); (4) A coin of Juba II exists with SEH. p. 580 n. 59; Dessau, Klio, vm, 1908,
an almost (or precisely) identical obverse and de- pp. 459 ff.
nomination (Muller in, p. 107. 73), supplying a CIL. vm, p. 152.
8

basis for the tooler's vivid, but unhistorical, imagi- 9 SB. Wien> CLXXVII, 4. Abh. 1916, p. 105.
nation. Boutkowski announces that despite every Cf. Bell. Afr. 96, etc.
1 0 1 1
L.c. p. 110.,
effort he was unable to persuade an Arab farmer Marquardt, St.V. 1, p. 89, etc.; disregarded by
1 2

to sell him this specimen. The Arab missed an Last, CAH. xi, p. 455, etc.; cf. Mommsen, St.R»
unusually good bargain. in, pp. 810 f.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 225
municipia libera. However, Kubitschek sees that there is no evidence for a double
community. The truth is that libertas and colonial status were not mutually exclusive,
1
but coincident. Cicero shows that the truest libertas was actually that o f Roman
2
citizens, who possessed i t even more distinctively than peregrine liberae civitates; thus
3
it is completely consistent w i t h a Roman colony, and the omission o f the w o r d
colonia is frequerit on colonial coinages o f this period. I n the same way as Bilbilis
seems to have proclaimed its civitas by the w o r d Italica (p. 170), the ius Italicum being
a concomitant o f citizenship at this time (p. 316), so Hippo commemorates i t by the
equally relevant w o r d libera: but here there is special point i n such advertisement—the
epithet served to differentiate the privileged Hippo Diarrhytus from the peregrine and
stipendiary Hippo Regius.
Relevant to libertas is another series which has been misattributed. This includes a
4
large piece w i t h A V G V S T V S I M P . (his head to left, simpulum), whose reverse type
is a figure o f Mercury, w i t h caduceus, seated on a rock, accompanied b y the inscription
C. I . P. I I I I V I R (Pi. V I I I , 1). This, w i t h a number o f Tiberian issues w i t h the same
ethnic, has been ascribed, for no good reason, by Perizoni to Sabrata,* b y Ramus to
6 7 8
Utica, by Havercamp to Carthage, by Pellerin to Parada, by Cavedoni to Pulput,9
10
and b y Eckhel to Clypea. Although Eckhel, supported b y Muller, makes out a case
for the connection o f Mercury w i t h the promontory near Clypea, his theory, generally
accepted though i t is, does violence to the principles governing ethnics, b y which
C. I . regularly represents colonia Iulia.
Such doubts are shown to be justified by a piece, bought at Bir-Bou-Rekba (near
11
Nabeul), w i t h CAESAR D I V I F. (his head to left, simpulum or lituus) and the same
type o f Mercury seated. O n this the reverse legend is C O L O N I A E I V L I A E : two mono-
grams follow, o f which the former is P i ; the latter is corrected by E. S. G. Robinson
(who has seen the coin) to a version o f T H A P . , " and Thapsus may accordingly be con-
sidered a probable choice for the mint. The objection might be advanced that later
Thapsitan coins, under Tiberius, omit the colonial tide, and that legends from his
X
principate, such as T H A P S V M I V N . AVG. 3 and C E R E R I A V G V S T A E T H A M P S -
1
I T A N I (sic), * are inconsistent w i t h a previous use o f this title. But the absence o f the
word colonia is very frequent i n the colonial series at this time, many cities omitting i t
1
// Verr. 1. 7, 1. 13, 3. 66. 5 Cf. Muller, L a 6
Copenhagen Cat. 1, 391.
a
Cf. Riccobono, Annali del Seminario giuridico Mid. de la reine Christine, pi. 48. 32.
7

della R. Univ. di Palermo, xv, 1936, p. 453; Lettres, 11, pp. 152 f.
8

Kloesel, Libertas, Diss. Breslau, 1935, p. 44; von Bull. arch, italiano, 1, 1862, pp. 175 f.
9

Premerstein, PW. x, 1248; Tellenbach, Forschungen 10

DN. iv, p. 14. The present list omits attribu-
\ur Kirchen- und Geistesgeschichte, vn, 1936, p. 18; tions so fanciful as to ignore the obvious African
see below, p. 401, for a general discussion. fabric.
3
Not only Pliny, but Pausanias also (vn, 18.^), Bull. arch. com. 1915, p. cxciv.
1 1

describes colonies merely as 'free cities'. Monogram 8—pace Bull. arch, du com., L a
I a

4
Copenhagen, Leningrad; cf. Muller 11, p. 155. 3 Muller 11, p. 47. 12.
x

330, Suppl. p. 56. Tunis (Bado mus.), Vatican; cf. BM.

1 4
226 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
long after their colonisation —many too, as here, specifying i t on an early programme
issue but not thereafter. A t Buthrotum, for example, the ethnic C. I . B V T . is earlier
than B V T H R . (p. 270); at Emporiae M V N I C I P I . is absent from all but the earliest
2
coin i n its Latin series (p. 154). Indeed, on such commemorative pieces the title is
more appropriate than on later issues. There remain two reasons for attribution to a
Byzacenian mint, and two i n support o f the claims o f Thapsus i n particular. The title
CAESAR D I V I F., indicating a date before 27 B . C . , is only found elsewhere i n Africa ,
at Achulla, Thaena and Leptis minor (pp. 230,346,338), all i n Byzacene; Mercury only
occurs i n Africa at Leptis minor and Thysdrus (pp. 338,347). These general arguments
in favour o f the most natural interpretation o f the monogram are augmented by par-
ticular resemblances to known Thapsitan issues. A seated figure on coins o f Tiberius
with C. I . P.3 is remarkably like that on his issues w i t h T H A M P S I T A N I , while his
peculiar portraits on the series w i t h C. I . P. and T H A P S V M are practically identical.
4
Thus colonia Iulia P(ia?) may confidently be assigned to Thapsus. P l i n y describes
this as an oppidum liberum: but, on the one hand, o f the other African cities i n his
list o f liberae, at least four are certainly coloniae Iuliae; on the other, he only defines
5
correctly six out o f a probable nineteen o f the latter category. The explanations for
this ambiguity are t w o . First, libertas is, as has been shown, a characteristic that can
apply equally to Roman and peregrine communities; secondly, i t has been established
6
beyond all doubt that the Agrippan list, used by Pliny, sometimes omits foundations
7
which occurred before 27 B . C . The present isolated issue celebrates the deductio o f the
8
new colony just as all African pieces w i t h similar obverse legends commemorate some
such promotion o f their city.
I t is now clear that many Julian colonies may have lapsed into oblivion, from
which they can only be recovered b y numismatic study. For example, there is another
for which dubious epigraphic evidence is supplemented b y coinage. This includes
issues b y two colleges o f duoviri, whose names have been frequently misread from the
rare and ill-struck pieces:
( i ) 9 C. FABIVS C A T V L V S I I V I R head o f Neptune to right w i t h trident.
D . (?) S E X T I L I VS C O R N V T V S I I V I R facing head o f Sun, w i t h radiate crown.
1
E.g. Corinth (BMC. 505, 509, 514, etc.). Lystra and pre-Julian Italica. Sexi and Lix are other
* Cf. Corinth, which places an unusually full probable omissions (p. 174). His 24 municipia in
titulature on early pieces, e.g. BMC. 485. Spain defy discovery: cf. van Nostrand, UCPH. iv,
3 Paris; Muller 11, p. 155. 2, 1916, pp. 114E Julian communities are often
4
NH. v, 25. 5 Broughton, p. 49. ignored by him when they had been suppressed by
6
Cf. most recendy Jones, CERP. p. 492. a later foundation.
7
Cf. Broughton, p. 53 n. 40 for Africa— 8
For quattuorviri at colonies, cf. Parium (p. 248).
confirmed by the coins of Zama Regia, Hippo, 9 Boissevain, Z/2V. xxix, 1912, p. 107; cf. Hague,
Hadrumetum, Achulla. Pliny likewise completely Copenhagen, Pesaro, etc.; misread by Muller 11,
omits mun. Iulium Uselis and col. Iulia Cnossus, p. 51, Borghesi, Caronni, von Falbe, etc. A piece
attributes col. Iulia Traducta to the wrong shore of lacking legends, with the same reverse type and a
the Mediterranean, and ignores the civitas of Iulia horse on the obverse, is in the BM.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 227
(2) 1
L . F L A M I N . C A P I T . [ I I V I R ] obverse type o f (1).
• - L E I V . P E R T . [ I I V I R ] radiate head o f Sun to right.

M u l l e r V attribution to a governor o f c. 94 B . C . is based on a completely erroneous

3
reading: Mommsen pointed out that the style is o f a later period. N o w the radiate
head on (2) is precisely like a head of the same deity on coins o f Augustan date w i t h the
4
ethnic o f Hadrumetum: the same mint also provides a head o f Neptune practically
identical w i t h those on (1) and (2). There can be no doubt that this was the city to
which the two colleges belong. The duoviral titles suggest Roman rank, and epigraphic
and literary evidence can be quoted i n favour of the interpretation o f Hadrumetum as a
5
colonia Iulia. First, there are tiles w i t h C. I . H . whose provenance suggests attribu-
tion here; secondly, Hadrumetum, like so many other Julian colonies, is described
6
by Pliny as oppidum liberum. Finally, on a Trajanic inscription i t is entitled colonia
Concordia Vlpia Traiana Frugifera-J abstract titles such as Concordia invariably date
8
from the end o f the Republic, and this particular example has been shown b y Carco-
10
pino to apply i n the case o f Carthage (as at Beneventum9 and Brundusium ) to the
circumstances o f 42-40 B . C . " This is, moreover, one o f the four possible periods for
the foundation of colonia Hadrumetum deduced by Gsell" from the evidence known to
him. A n Augustan coin ,of the colony—nearly contemporary w i t h a representation o f
13 14
Caius and Lucius —bearing the head o f Julius inscribed C A E S A R is confirmative,
since i t suggests that the dictator planned some advancement for the community,
which, as so often, is very likely to have been achieved after his death. Similar heads
15
appear at many other Julian colonies and at cities freed by h i m , but not elsewhere.
It is therefore certain that he planned the colony at Hadrumetum, and highly probable
that this was carried out—like a foundation at Carthage (p. 231)—by Lepidus i n 42-40.
The isolated duoviral issues undoubtedly represSht the foundation-issues o f the new
colony: the appearance o f two colleges recalls the not infrequent custom o f a second
coinage, immediately after the first, defrayed from the surviving balance ofa foundation-
fund (p. 291). The interpretation o f these as inauguratory issues is confirmed by the
fact that C. Fabius Catulus and D . (?) Sextilius Cornutus also strike a very rare silver
16
piece —whose only certain parallel is on coinage celebrating the liberatio o f Leptis
Magna (p. 340). A Q . Fabius C a . . . was a procurator o f Augustus. 17

BM, Berlin, misread by ZfN. x, 1883, p. 84.

1
Rev. hist, CLXII, 1929, p. 91; pace Gsell, ibid.
11

11, p. 51; cf. Munzer, PW. vi, 1763.

a
CLVI, 1927, pp. 228 ff.; Markowski, Eos, xxxiv,
M%w. p. 671.
3
1933, p. 440; Frank, ES. 1, p. 318.
Muller 11, p. 52. 27, p. 51.
4
" vm, p. 171.
CIL. vi, p. 2319; cf. Broughton, p. 49.
5
BM, Paris: C. C A E . F., L. C A E . F. Misread
1 3

* NH. v, 25. 7 CIL. vi, 1687, etc. by Muller n, p. 52. 32 f.

Cagnat, Revue epigraphique, 1913, pp. 4 ff. BM, Paris; cf. Muller 11, 52. 30 f.
1 4

Pais, Rend, della R. Ac. dei Lincei (sc.-mor.), vi,

9
As late as the second century A.D., e.g. Apamea.
1 5

> *9Mi P- 363.

J
Bahrfeldt, NZ. xxvn, 1896, pp. 118 f.
1 6

MS. 3784; cf Syme, RR. p. 217 n. 4.

1 0
?
CIL. HI, 7071, cf. Groag, SB. ix, 1939, p. 139.
17
228 THE ROMAN COLONIES
A later commemorative group shows the names and portraits o f three proconsuls.
1
T w o coins, w i t h heads o f the Sun and an ethnic, have P. Q V I N C T I L I . V A R V S and
2
L . V O L V S I V S S A T V R N . , accompanied by busts—found also at A c h i l l a (p. 230)
3
(Pi. V I I , 30, 29)—which, i n spite o f suppositions to the contrary, certainly represent
4
those governors. The third piece, w i t h the head o f a bearded deity and an ethnic on the
obverse, has a reverse precisely similar to that of an official coin which has been ascribed
to the mint (p. 139): i t reads A F R I C . FABIVS M A X . COS. P R O COS. V I I V I R 5
EPVL., and shows his portrait to right (Pi. V I I , 28). These proconsuls, o f whom the
first two also appear at Achulla and the third at Hippo (p. 224) and on official coinage
(p. 139), cannot be dated w i t h certainty: Fabius is most likely to have governed from
6 to 5 B . C . , to have been preceded by Volusius7 and succeeded—probably at one
6

8
remove—by Quinctilius. These issues deserve further discussion, since they have been
erroneously construed by Mommsen as proof o f a proconsular Pragerecht? and by
10 11
Regling and Kruse as evidence o f Anteil am kaiserlichen Bildnisrechte. These legal-
istic theories are invalidated not only by the local character o f the coinages—which
Mommsen does not distinguish from the official series o f the province—but by the
Dative inflection o f Fabius's name at Hippo: this shows that the issues commemorated
1
the proconsuls," and that no Recht on their part is i n question. * Mommsen and his
followers failed to consider that this was a time when numerous cities engraved the
14
portraits even o f contemporary private citizens upon their coins, and when colonies
and municipia celebrate city-magistrates i n the same way (pp. 163, 184). The attribu-
1
tion o f any Rights' to those portrayed is wholly inadmissible: the procedure was still
1
honorary, * and Mommsen's theory o f their conferment on the senior proconsuls as a
1
Muller 11, p. 52. 26; du Palin coll., etc. 11
Studien iur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums,
2
Ibid. 27; BM, Vienna. 1934, Kaiserbild, p. 19 n. 1.
3
E.g. Cavedoni, Bullettino archeologico italiano,1 2
Cf. Pansa, Ait. 1909, p. 365.
1, 1862, pp. 171 f.; Borghesi, (Euvres, 1, p. 312. 1 3
This is also implied by Pippidi, Revue des
4
Muller, l.c. 29; Hague, Paris, Copenhagen. itudes latinesy 1935, p. 427; Arangio-Ruiz, Studia et
5 Cf. Mommsen, ZfN. 1875, P» 7 « 2
documenta historiae et iuris iv, 1938, pp. 235 f.
f
6
Cf. Renault, Bull. arch, du com. 1897, p. 256, A Genitive at Achulla is an archaism (cf. Mattingly,
correcting de Lessert, Pastes des provinces africaines,BMC. Imp. pp. lxix f.) often found on local
p. 83, and Tissot, Pastes de la province romaine issues.
d'Afrique, p. 43. 1 4
E.g. Pythes (BMC. 55, PI. X I , 61) and Sitalcas
7 Dessau, PIR. 111, 482. 660; cf. de Lessert, l.c. (BMC. 54) at Laodicea, Antiochus at Miletopolis
p. 81; but Renault disagrees. (Winterthur; Imhoof-Blumer, RS. xin, p. 48),
8
Dessau, PIR. in, 118. 27, de Lessert, l.c. p. Attalus at Hypaepa, Papion at Dioshieron (pp. 349,
80 (7-6 B . C ) , ignore coins (BMC. Galatia, etc., 468), Charidamus on issues of the KOIV6V 'Aafas
p. 158. 57) showing his presence in Syria: Wad- (p« 377), Theophanes and Archedamis at the be-
dington (Rn. 1867, p. 123) attributes his pro- ginning of a long series at Mytilene (ZfN. ix, 1882,
consulship to 4-3 B . C Cf. also Momigliano, CAH. p. 131), Amnessus at Alabanda (p. 373).
x, p. 338. J
5 It may be noted that a similar 'decree* of
9 ZfN. 1875, pp. 69 ff. portraiture to Julius has been shown to be false
10
WMK. p. 534. (p. M).
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 229
consolation at the time o f Caius's designation as consul, and o f their removal at his
1
death, is based on unacceptable hypotheses.
3
Yet i t is impossible to believe, w i t h Muller* and Waddington, that these issues have
no special historical significance. A coincidence too striking to be accidental makes i t
clear that they have. I n the first place, the group is geographically and chronologically
isolated and homogeneous: but i n the other consular * senatorial* province, Asia, three
cities (Temnus, Hierapolis, Pitane) exceptionally honour three proconsuls whose
tenures appear to be exactly or very nearly contemporary w i t h those i n the African
group—Paullus Fabius Maximus,C. Asinius Gallus and L . Cornelius Scipio (pp. 387 f.).
These contemporary phenomena are explained by a decisive link between the six
governors. Five o f them were relatives by marriage to the princeps? and the sixth,
s
Gallus, is explicitly stated by him to be his <piAos. Syme points out that the inner
6
circle o f Augustus's associates were bound to him by marriage, and he7 and von
8 0
Premerstein have established that amici principis on the Hellenistic model were
already recognised, w i t h gradations and ceremonial conferment. These six were
10
of the amici—members o f the cohors primae admissionis: and the same can be
established o f the few other Romans whom cities henceforward honour w i t h portraits.
M . Plautius Silvanus, named and represented on a Pergamene coin probably o f A.D. 4-5
(p. 388), was the son o f a friend o f Livia and the father o f a wife o f Claudius;"
M . Pompeius Macer (at Priene, p. 388) was Augustus's librarian and one o f Tiberius's
12
intimates; L . Passienus Rufus (on the official coinage o f Africa, p. 139) was a close
friend of Augustus, signally honoured by the last cognomen imperatoris awarded outside
13
the imperial family; C. Poppaeus Sabinus (at Aegina under Tiberius ) is called b y
1
Tacitus amicus principum. * Thus portraiture on city coinage was, from c. 7 B.C., the
prerogative o f the select band o f the amici. I t remains to be seen w h y the first few
1
years after this date saw an efflorescence o f this phenomenon at Hadrumetum, *
1
Criticism can also be levelled against its Premerstein, pp. 223 f. Cf. also CIG. 3499 f.;
chronological bases: L. Apronius is honoured in Magie, De Romanorum vocabulis, etc, p. 70.
precisely the same way at Hippo even under RR. pp. 373, 379.
6

Tiberius (Berlin: Muller 11, p. 167. 378); Caius was 7 Ibid. p. 385. 8
P. 224.
designated consul not in 6 B.C. but in 5 (cf. Stuart 9 Cf. Wilhelm, SB. Wien, CLXXXIII, 3. Abh.
Jones, CAH. x, p. 154); and the proconsular Fasti pp. 37 f. For the Greek Imperial counterpart, 91A0-
are far from certain. Kocfaapss, see p. 365, and Muensterberg, MBNGW.
2
ZfN. 1875, PP. 295 ff. ix, 1913, p. 159.
3
Rn. 1867, pp. 102 f. Seneca, De Clementia, 1, 10. 1.
1 0

4
For Volusius vide Syme, RR. p. 424; Quinc- Cf. Syme, RR. p. 422.
1 1

tilius, ibid. p. 434; cf. Tac. Ann. iv, 52. 66. Afr. " Dessau, PIR. m, 67. 472, 473.
Maximus (PIR. 11, 48. 37) was the brother of Berlin: I hope to study such coins in a later
1 3

Paullus Maximus, for whom vide PIR. 11, 48. 38; work.
ibid. 340. 184; Syme, RR. p. 433. For Scipio, ibid. 1 4
Ann. vi, 39; cf. PIR. 11, 86. 627.
P. 379; PIR . 11, 355. 1438.
2
5 Including the official series issued at this city
x

5
Dittenberger, SIG.* 1, p. 780. 11; cf. von (p. 139).
230 THE ROMAN COLONIES
Achulla, Hippo, and three cities o f Asia. The reason is inherent i n the deaths o f
Agrippa i n 12 and o f Drusus i n 9, and i n the growing desire o f the princeps other
henchman, Tiberius, for retirement. These successive blows meant that the consulships
and consular appointments had to be filled b y novi homines} who were necessary for
the efficient administration o f the enlarged Empire. Since this phenomenon was
dangerously likely to alienate the most influential sections o f society, Augustus matfe
a counterblast i n the institution o f formal amicitia principis, a cachet o f the Augus
aristocracy i n which old and new nobility alike found a place. His auctoritas was
sufficient to substitute this criterion for the different canons o f snobbery which had
hitherto been employed. The change was assisted b y a series o f appointments o f his
amici to the plums o f the proconsular career, Africa and Asia, and was given publicity
by directions to a few cities o f those provinces to honour their governors i n a signal
way. Thus the coins establish the chronology o f one o f the decisive social institutions
o f the early principate, and the interpretation o f the much misunderstood phenomenon
o f proconsular coin-portraiture.
One o f the series on which this interpretation is based is that o f Achulla. Its coins,
all exceedingly rare, are the following:

(1) CAESAR D I V I F., A C H V L L A head o f Octavian to right—DIVOS I V L I V S

3
head o f Julius to left; wreath round edge. Punic countermark.
(2) A C H V L L A head o f Astarte to right—L. V O L V S I V S S A T V R N . head o f the
proconsul to right ( P i . V I I , 29).3
(3) A V G . P O N T . M A X . , C. L . heads o f Augustus, Caius and Lucius—same re-
4
verse w i t h A C H V L L A ; varieties o f abbreviation.
(4) Same obverse—P. Q V I N C T I L I V A R I , A C H V L L A head o f the proconsul
to right (Pi. V I I , 31, 3o).5
Also [ T L ] CAESAR A V G V - • • • head o f Tiberius to right—[ACHjVLLA radiate
6
head o f Augustus to left, bolt.
7
Achulla was free before the reorganisation<of Julius; i t is recorded b y Pliny as still an
oppidum liberum? I t is clear, however, from the cities that have already been discussed
that, as far as Pliny's statement is concerned, i t may well have been a Julian colony;
and there are five positive reasons for considering this to have been the case:—
(1) Since Achulla was already free before Julius, its mention as free b y Pliny
implies, as Gsell? points out, that i t probably underwent some change o f status i n the
interim period, to warrant its appearance i n the Agrippan list.
1
Cf. Marsh, The Founding of the Roman Empire, 5 BM, Glasgow, Berlin. Muller, lx. 7; cf. von
p. 248. Sallet, ZfN. xvm, 1892, p. 200.
* Milan, Levis coll. Muller 11, p. 43. 6. 6
Paris: not in Muller.
3 Milan, Paris. Muller 11, p. 44. 9-10. 7
Bell. Afr. 33; Lex Agraria 79.
4
BM, Stockholm, Paris. Muller, l.c. 8
NH. v, 30. 9 VIII, p. 171.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 231
(2) The posthumous commemoration o f Julius by name and portrait strongly
suggests that he was responsible for that change o f status (p. 318).
(3) There is not a single peregrine community i n Africa which employs wholly
Latin inscriptions; i n fact, even its municipia often use the native tongue (p. 174).
(4) These issues show a striking general uniformity w i t h the series o f the Julian
colony at Hadrumetum.
(5) There are similar commemorations o f proconsuls at the Julian colonies o f
Hadrumetum and Hippo, but at no peregrine town i n Africa.

This is the fifth indication o f an unrecorded Julian foundation i n Africa; the re-
currence o f the dictator's head and name demonstrates that they were planned by
him, although their completion was the work o f a triumvir. The isolated Octavianic
coins o f Thapsus and Achulla—like similar sporadic mintages elsewhere, and particu-
larly at the peregrine towns o f Leptis minor and Thaena (pp. 338, 346)—have the
character of inauguratory issues, and indicate that these deductiones were postponed by
the inefficient government o f Lepidus and reserved for his successor.
However, Lepidus had founded Hadrumetum, and apparently Carthage (pp. 51,227).
It has been shown that the supposed suffetes o f Carthage are i n fact o f Caralis (p. 149),
and that the ethnic K A R . described by Muller on a Pompeian military issue was mis-
read (p. 20). There remains, however, one pair o f duoviri who can be attributed to the
second foundation o f this colony (28 B.C.), on whose site the halves o f two specimens
1

may have been found. This college can be dated to A . D . 8-10 b y the obverse inscription
2

3
T I . C(aesar) A(ugusti) F. IMP. V . , accompanied b y the bare head of Tiberius.
Other coins have the portrait o f Augustus (pfc V I , 2 } ) , inscribed I M P . C(aesar)
4

D(ivi) F. A(ugustus) P. M . P. P. A l l have on the reverse P. I . SP., D . V . SP. I I V I R .

C. I . C. round P. P. D . D . For the duoviri Borghesi's* suggestion ' P. Junius Spendo,
D . Valerius Speratus' is as good as any other. Interpretations o f P. P. on the reverse
e
as P(ermissu) V(roconsulis) are invalidated by the stereotyped regularity o f the formula
Pecunia Pullica Decreto Decurionumf which must be intended here. I t is very unusual
for such issues not to be inauguratory: but the present coinage illustrates a kindred
custom, namely the commemoration o f the fiftieth anniversary o f the foundation.
Identical i n purpose was an equally isolated issue at Uselis (p. 153), and further parallels
w i l l be afforded by Cirta (?)—whose issues w i l l next be discussed—by another colony
at Lystra (p. 249), and b y the peregrine civitas libera o f Leptis minor (p. 338), which
remarkably provides exact duplicates for both the obverse legends found here.

To right: own coll., cf. ibid. 324; to left:

1
Cf. Poinssot, Bulletin de la Societe nationale des 4

antiquaires de France, 1928, p. 266, etc. Hague, cf. ibid. 323. 5 (Euvres 11, p. 480.
2
Cagnat, Klio, ix, 1914, pp. 200 ff. 6
Cf. Borghesi, l.c. p. 430, etc.
3
To right: BM, cf. Muller 11, p. 150. 325: to left: 7 ILS. 5668, etc.; cf. Kiibler, PW. iv, 2338;
BM, cf. ibid. 326. Muller 11, pp. 159 ff.
22
3
THE ROMAN COLONIES
Carthage, being a colonia Concordia (p. 227), is particularly likely to have been
founded i n c. 42-40—exactly half a century before this coinage (cf. p. 295).
T o Cirta w i l l tentatively be attributed an issue generally assigned to Carthage, o f
1
which both denominations were gravely misread and misdescribed by Muller.
However, the preservation o f the only three extant specimens does not permit more
than a fragmentary description: ,
(1) R T A A V G . D . P. Q. C. bare head o f Augustus to left.
T I . CAES., M . T . F., M . M . A . I I V I R . bare head o f Tiberius to right (Pi. V I I I , 3).*
A second issue, o f which there is now only one example, was made by the same
college:
(2) O N . , M A N . T . F., M . M . [ A . I I V I R ] . laureate portrait to left.
C. I . C. D . D . P. P. bare head o f Augustus (?) to right ( P i .
V I I I , ).>
4

The formula o f (1), D(ecurionum) P(opuli) Q(ue) C(onsensu), shows an interesting

divergency from the usual phrase. O w i n g to the poor state o f the legends, certainty
regarding these coins cannot at present be attained: but, subject to the discovery o f
better specimens, some conjectures may be hazarded. I t is possible, or probable, that
the lost legend o f (2), • • • • O N . represents [C]ON(</zW)—the title o f yet another o f
the large but much neglected category o f founders. Lepidus, who probably founded
Carthage i n c. 42-40 (p. 227), could not thus have been commemorated on such an
issue o f the last years o f Augustus's principate. N o r is the style o f these coins that o f
Carthage or Zeugitana. I t is reasonable to deduce from (2) that the missing inscription
of (1) included the name and title o f the colony C. I . C. The laureate, head on (2) has a
skull w i t h a strange protrusion, a feature o f the portraits o f P. Sittius on his foundation-
issue o f Simitthu (Pi. V I , 15). Since his most important foundation was colonia Iulia
Cirta (p. 180), and the hiatus on our specimen o f (1) ends w i t h an R followed b y A T
or T A , the following restorations may at least be considered possible:
(1) [ C O L . I V L . CIJRTA, A V G . D . P. Q. C.
(2) [P. S I T . C ] O N . , M A N . T . F. M . M . [ A . I I V I R ] .
Here then is another isolated issue which, like that o f Carthage, may celebrate not the
foundation o f its city but its fiftieth year (p. 153).
Another problematical issue ( P i . V I I I , 2) is represented b y only three specimens 4

whose style is certainly African.* I t has a bare head o f Augustus, accompanied b y a

lituus and I M P . CAESAR D I V I F. A V G V S T V S ; on the reverse is a head o f Minerva
to right, a crab, and PERM. L . V O L V S I . P R O COS., M o w e d b y four letters—
n, 149. 321.
1 4
BM, Paris, also an unpublished specimen at
* Paris, Berlin: lower part of T I . visible on Paris Avignon.
specimen. 5 Cavedoni, Bull. arch. ital. 1, 1862, pp. 171 f.;
3 Paris: Muller, l.c 322, MAN. wrongly as M. cf. Muller, Suppl. p. 38.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 233
1
variously read as GERG., CERC.,* CENE,3 and C E N . P.* The last o f these sugges-
tions, referring to a supposed CEN(soria) P(otestas) o f the proconsul, need not now be
taken seriously. The town o f Cene is a practically unknown mat trovato from Byza-
cene, GERG(w) a very obscure stipendiary town i n Zeugitana. W e know o f no com-
munity o f that rank i n Africa which coins w i t h the head o f Augustus and w i t h the
Latin tongue. Nor do we know o f any peregrine city i n the whole Empire which
records a proconsular permission to issue coinage: for this reason, attribution to
the free city o f CERC(ma)*—which would, moreover, like its peers, be expected to
produce bilingual coinage (p. 346)—is also very unlikely.
6
However, the fourth letter is seen from one o f our specimens to be a C or G. But
as to the third, the presence o f a long diagonal stroke downwards, from left to right,
shows that the eyes o f Borghesi and Cavedoni, who saw an N , were better than those
of Muller, who professed to discern an R. This he needed to accord with his view that
7
the mention o f the proconsular permission necessitated the presence o f an ethnic: for
no CENC is discoverable i n Africa, where the issue must be attributed on grounds o f
style. For these letters a preferable explanation is obtainable from another source.
A t this period Roman towns frequently sign their issues, not w i t h an ethnic, but w i t h a
formula stating the sanction o f the local senate. D . D . , E X D . D . , E X S. C , etc. are
well known; and the municipalities also use phrases such as universuspop. Aquinatium
p.p. censuerunt? More correct still is the executive formula senatus censuitpopulusque
0
iussit. The verb censeo particularly refers to the decrees o f the senate at Rome and o f
all senatus civium Romanorum throughout tffe Empire. N o w the foundation-series o f
Sittius at Simitthu (?) has given a numismatic example o f the common inscriptional use
of curia for senatus (p. 179): thus the present formula may b& restored as CEN(sente)
C(uria). A strong likeness i n style and size to the largest issue o f Sittius, which has a
helmeted bust o f particularly similar execution (Pi. V I , 15), suggests that the resem-
blance o f formula is not fortuitous, and that this coin too should be assigned to
Simitthu—probably commemorating its exchange o f municipal rank for the status o f
colony, already attributed to Augustus (p. 180). This interpretation accounts for the
10

mention of the proconsul: governors are similarly recorded on the Sicilian foundation-
coinages, but not elsewhere, and i t was natural for the curator-adsignator o f a colony to
sanction its inauguratory coinage—especially when (like Volusius) he was an amicus
principis.
1
Muller 11, p. 35. 65. 5 Pliny, NH. v, 27. 6
BM.
2
Ibid, (as an alternative). 7
L.c. 8
CIL. x, 5395.
3
Borghesi, in letter to Cavedoni; cf. Muller, 9 Cic. Pro Ptancio, 17. 42; cf. Stevenson, CAH.
Suppl. p. 38 n. 3. x, p. 349.
4
Cavedoni, I.e.; cf. Muller, Suppl. p. 38. 1 0
CIL. vm, 14712; cf. 14559.
234 THE ROMAN COLONIES

9. P R O V I N C I A M A R I T I M A : Melita(?)

There is reason to believe that Melita, a community usually within the jurisdiction o f
1
Sicily, received a colony while attached to a special maritime province during the
Civil Wars. This conclusion is derived from the following unpublished and apparently
unique c o i n : — *
T A D I . veiled female head to right.
M A R L sella quaestoria (p. 13) and staff (Pi. V I I , 25).*

The style is unmistakably that o f the Maltese group o f islands, and the type o f the
3
head recalls coinage o f Melita itself during the last century B . C . : the issue may con-
fidently be ascribed to the city on that island. The stylistic probability o f an early date
4
is confirmed by the close imitation o f the reverse type from a quinarius o f L . Sestius,
who was pro quaestore o f Macedonia-Achaia under Brutus and Q. Hortensius i n 44-42
(p. 33). This resemblance is proved not to be fortuitous b y the treatment o f the head
on the obverse, which is derived from a second coin o f the same official.*
These similarities make i t necessary to conclude that the authorities who issued
these coins were o f Republican sympathies. N o w Melita was not omitted from the
general enfranchisement o f Sicily which, begun i n 44, was continued under Sex.
Pompeius (p. 193). But i t is unlikely that Sextus himself was responsible for the present
6
issue, since, although he professed to be an ally o f the Republicans, he failed to co-
operate w i t h them;7 he could scarcely have desired the implication o f subordination to
Brutus carried by these types. But, early i n 42, the Republican leaders could lay claim
to more active supporters on their Western flank: Q. Cornuficius had w o n indepen-
8
dent control o f Africa, and L . Staius Murcus had his headquarters at the south point
o f the Peloponnese.9 The latter o f these is the more likely to have been the agent for
this coinage. I t is very doubtful whether Cornuficius considered himself subordinate to
10
Brutus's imperium maius —and the types o f our coin indicate some such allegiance—
and, i n any case, we hear nothing o f his conquests outside Africa. Murcus, on the
other hand, was i n complete control o f the seas." He blockaded Brundusium," and,
13
collaborating w i t h Ahenobarbus, dominated the Adriatic and Ionian seas: yet his
14
base was as far south as the Laconian Gulf. His ships were everywhere: Cassius could
1
Pliny, NH. 111, 92. 2
BM. 6
Cf. Ganter, Philologus, LIII, 1894, pp. 144 f.
3
E.g. Glasgow (Hu. m, 605. 15), Cambridge 7 Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 23.
(McLean 10,015). 8
Ganter, l.c. pp. 141 ff. 9 Appian, BC. iv, 74*
4
BMCR. 11, p. 473. 47. This composition is not 1 0
Cf. Ganter, I.e. p. 142, and Cicero's tact in
found elsewhere, though the types occasionally Fam. XII, 22, 28, 30.
occur (e.g. BMC. Cyrenaica, pi. X L H I , 4, and above, Cf. Munzer, PW. (2R.), m, 2138.
1 1

p. 13). " Appian, BC. iv, 82; Dio XLVII, 47.

5 BMCR. 11, pp. 472 f.; Bahrfeldt, NZ. 1896, 1 3
Appian, BC. IV, 100, 108, v, 2.
pi. VTI, 166. ' 4 Cf. ibid, iv, 86.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 235
1
rightly claim that the Eastern Mediterranean was a Republican lake. I t is i n the highest
degree probable that Murcus occupied Melita—of which a principal citizen, A .
Licinius Aristoteles, is described by Cicero as a man who outdid all i n loyalty to the
2 3
Republic. Murcus was subordinate to the imperium maius o f Brutus and Cassius, but
retained his imperium as praefectus classisS
The names Tadi. Mari. could either be the signatures, on official coinage, o f a com-
mander and his lieutenant—like Stati. Trebo. at Lipara (p. 53)—or those o f a pair
of duoviri. Similar pairs o f names without qualifying titles appear on the coinages o f a
contemporary Republican colony at Rhodes (p. 243), on issues at Paestum from the
forties and thirties (pp. 202, 284) and at a triumviral settlement at Tingis (p. 175):
in all these cases i t is necessary to interpret the signatures as those o f duoviri. A t
another transient Republican colony, at Cyrene, a single name appears, again un-
qualified (p. 240). These analogies make i t necessary to conclude that the present
coinage is likewise colonial: Melita was an ephemeral garrison-colony o f Brutus and
Cassius like Cyrene and Rhodes. I t is possible to go farther, and to guess that this
issue commemorated its foundation. A t Rhodes, Tingis and Paestum alike the unde-
fined pairs o f magistrates are duoviri coloniae deducendae (urbis moeniundae\ while at
Cyrene—as at Venafrum (p. 285)—only the senior member o f the college, the de-
ductor, is mentioned.
Tadius and Marius, then—neither o f whom are identifiable—collaborated i n the
deductio o f Melita, previously o f municipal rank, near the beginning o f 42 B.C. When
Murcus, after Philippi, transferred his allegiance to Sex. Pompeius 5 (who soon killed
6 7
h i m ) , the island no doubt passed, w i t h the command o f the seas and o f the rest o f
provincia Sicilia, to the latter; and there is no reason to suppose that Sextus suppressed
so valuable a colony as well as its originator. A coin w i t h Greek ethnic and the name,
in Latin, o f C. Arruntanus Balbus pro pr. (p. 59) indicates that i t was Octavian who
degraded the city to peregrine status; he installed an officer to superintend its subjuga-
tion, collect an indemnity, and fortify the island against the new public menace,
Antony.

10. S I C I L Y : [Tauromenium], Tyndaris, Thermae Himeraeae (?)

No colonies can be attributed to the period o f general enfranchisement which came
to an end i n 36 B.C. (p. 193). T o the rest o f our period can be ascribed only three
colonial issues, and, as i n the municipal series, each o f these commemorates a
foundation.
The first issue recalls the degradation and punishment o f the island which followed
1
Appian, BC. iv, 100, 108. * Fam. xm, 52. 5 Appian, BC. v, 2.
3
Appian, BC. iv, 59. « Dio XLVIII, 19.
4
BMCR. 11, 485 (IMP.); cf. Dio XLVII, 28. 4; 7
Ibid.; cf. Kromayer, Philologus, LVI, 1897,
M
«nzer,l. .
c pp. 426 £
236 THE ROMAN COLONIES
Naulochus i n 36. I t is represented b y a single unpublished and unattributed specimen
1
i n poor condition:
• • [ C ] E R D ( ? ) . A . F., C A head o f Minerva to right i n crested
Corinthian helmet.
I I V [ I R . Q ] V I N . E X D . D . sella curulis between bundles o f fasces (Pi. V I I , 27).
The first o f the quinquennales here recorded apparently belongs to the obscure family o f
2
the Cerdonii. The style o f this piece may perhaps be Sicilian and demands attiibutien
to the pre-Actian period. But i t is unlikely to belong to the administration o f Sex.
Pompeius. Both types are closely imitated from Octavianic denarii—the reverse from
an issue o f L . Livineius Regulus, praefectus urbis and IVvir a.p.f. i n c. 43-42,* and the
3

6
obverse from one o f C. Vibius Varus 5 a few years later. I t must be concluded that
this issue belonged to the early years o f Octavian's government. I t is unlikely to form
a single exception to his limitation o f Roman city-coinage i n Sicily to foundation-
issues: and the occurrence o f quinquennales can be shown not to contravene this canon.
The first magistrates o f a refounded city might well bear this title when i t had pre-
viously possessed civitas or Latinitas, and Roman institutions (p. 161).? The only city
which fulfils these conditions, and, indeed, the only Roman city which still existed i n
Sicily itself, was Tauromenium, to which this coin possibly belongs. I n 36 its i n -
8

habitants were expropriated for their Pompeian sympathies^ however, the community,
consisting o f a new draft o f Italian settlers, exceptionally retained the franchise, ex-
10
changing municipal for colonial status. The fact that the first magistrates o f the new
rigime i n 36 were quinquennales indicates that, as elsewhere," the municipalisation
planned by the Lex Julia, and taken over b y the rival administration o f Sextus, was
not completed until a year or two later—in this case i n c. 41: inauguratory quin-
quennales occur for similar reasons at three other cities ( n . 7). I t is noteworthy that
some o f the latest peregrine issues o f Tauromenium before 41 have heads o f Minerva
12
closely resembling the present one i n attributes and execution.
1
Paris ('uncertain') [this attribution is cancelled issued 'refoundation' coinage (whose style excludes
in the Corrigenda]. the possibility that the present issue formed part of it).
2
Not in Schulze. A member of this gens can be 9 Diodorus Siculus xvi, 7. 1; cf. Scramuzza, ES.
conjecturally identified on coins of Turris Libisonis m, p. 252.
(p. 205); cf. CIL. x, 7956 (ibid.), vi, 34809 (Rome). 1 0
Diodorus, l.c; Pliny, NH. 111, 88. The words
3
BMCR. 1, p. 580. 4261, pi. L V H , 12. of Diodorus indicate attribution of the colony to
4
The controversy regarding his date is summed this date; cf. Scramuzza, l.c. p. 345, Cuntz, Klio, vi,
up by Miinzer, PW. xm, 808 (3); pace Mommsen, 1906, p. 467, Kornemann 80, Beloch, Die Bevolke-
Miw. pp. 653, 741 f., Grueber, l.c. rung der griechisch-rdmischen Welt, p. 337; poee
5 E.g. BMCR. pi. LvTII, 12. Mommsen,C/Z:.x,p.7i8,Ziegler,Pir.(2 R.),v,3o.
J

6
Grueber's dating to c 38 B.C. is thought by 1 1
E.g. different provincial legati (probably
H. Mattingly to be rather too late. governors) are the founders of Cephaloedium and
7
Cf. Thermae Himeraeae(P), Saguntum, Car- Panormus (pp. 192, 189).
thago Nova. 1 2
BMC. Sicily, pp. 233.40,43 and 234.53. [Note.
8
For the island ofLipara see p. 195: this retained The writer now considers the present attribution
its municipal rank, with a new population, and also erroneous. See n. 1 above.]
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 237
Thus colonia Tauromenium and municipium Lipara, the only communities o f the
province which emerge w i t h civitas from Octavian's drastic inflictions, both com-
memorate their new pre-eminence. I t w i l l be shown elsewhere that three other cities o f
less happy fate were forced to perpetuate the record o f their degradation by aes
coinage struck for an indemnity (pp. 392 ff.).
The remaining colonial issues include an as and a semis o f the same standard as
Augustus's municipal series:
As.
1
A V G V S T V S [ T V J N D A R . head to r i g h t — L . M V S S I D I . P R O COS. i n wreath.
Semis.
L . I V N I V S I I V l R Q V I N . A V G . eagle, aspergillum—L. A C I L I V S H V I R Q V I N Q .
A V G . lituus, praefericulum, patera ( P i . V I , 18).*
The issue o f Tyndaris is a foundation-coinage (p. 306): the colony was established by
L . Mussidius, i n the capacity o f Augustus's adsignator, probably i n the year 21 B.C.3
This as started the tradition continued by the uniform inauguratory issues o f municipia
Agrigentum, Lilybaeum, and Haluntium (pp. i96ff.). Mussidius is recorded on Sicilian
4
inscriptions: his tide is important to constitutionll history as a proof that Augustus,
on his travels to 'senatorial' provinces, did not take over their government from the
proconsuls (p. 428).
The semis is one o f the many coins that have been classed, i n desperation, among the
series o f Carthago Nova, on the feeble analogy o f an Acilius on the issues o f that city.
But the latter was called Quintus, not Lucius, and his coin, too, is wrongly attributed
(p. 213). Thus the attribution o f the present coin to Carthago Nova is wholly unten-
able; ft is, indeed, sharply differentiated from that or any other Spanish series by style
and formula. The style recalls Panormitan issues o f C. Julius Longus (p. 190), and
later Sicilian pieces o f L . Seius (p. 197); a similar eagle is found at Panormus.5 Thus a
6
Sicilian origin is probable. Moreover, a close parallel to the formula quin(quennalis)
Aug^usti)^ is Hvir Aug. Des. at Halaesa (p. 195). Here then is a second case o f designar
tion by Augustus o f the first magistrates o f a re-enfranchised city: here too is
independent proof that this issue, like all contemporary coinages i n Sicily, owes its
existence to a foundation. I n Sicily, moreover, inauguratory quinquennales are not
unexpected, since all cities i n the island had earlier possessed the civitas and the normal
structure o f Roman communities: for example, a peregrine coin o f Panormus still has—
1
BM, Paris, Turin, Copenhagen, own coll. 4
Notqie degli Scavi, 1887, p. 293.
Rightly restored by Borghesi, Memorie numis- 5 Cambridge {McLean 2522), Gotha, Munich.
matiche*, 1853, p. 91 = CEuvres 11, p. 451; cf. Holm 6
This conclusion may be refuted if, in the future,
7*6; Hill, Coins of Sicily, p. 215. evidence is forthcoming of Spanish provenance.
* BM, Cambridge, etc.; Heiss, p. 274. 9 ('Car- But the style suggests that this is unlikely,
thago Nova'). 7 The suggestion AVO(ustalis) of Florez(Medal-
3
Dio nv, 7—£r£pas TIVCCS TTOAEIS; cf. Pliny, NH. las de las colonias, etc., p. 652) is impossible.
Hi, 90; Kornemann 167; Scramuzza, ES. 111, p. 346.
238 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
together w i t h a Greek ethnic—the formula C(pnsensu) D(ecurionum). A possible
interpretation o f the present issue is provided by the appearance on an inscription o f a
2
L . A C I L I V S L . F. RVFVS I I V I R C O L . T [ H ] E R [ M I T A N O R V M ] , and o f another
L . Acilius at the same city, colonia Thermae Himeraeae.3 Given the Sicilian origin
o f our coin, the persistence at that town o f Acilii w i t h the praenomen Lucius provides
an attribution more convincing than coincidences o f a gentile name alone. Thermap
4
Himeraeae was colonised by Augustus early enough to be included i n the Plinian list;
its date and the name o f the proconsul who acted as Augustus's adsignator coloniae
deducendae cannot be determined. A t all events, i t is certain that the colonial series o f
Sicily under Augustus was, like the municipal, entirely limited to the foundation-issues
which play such a great and unrecognised part i n the coinage o f the whole period.

11. A S I A : Lystra, Rhodes, Alexandria Troas, Lampsacus, Parium

The province o f Asia provides four unrecognised examples o f pre-Augustan colonisa-
tion, and six o f inauguratory coinage. The earliest o f these is an issue represented by
two extant specimens:5
M . R V T I L V S P R O COS. C O L . I V L . male head to right, w i t h distinctive
features.
A . F E R I D I V S I I V I R E X D . D . colonist ploughing to left with humped oxen
(PI. V I I I , 8, 9).
The humped bull is commonly found i n Asia Minor only i n Caria, Lycaonia, and inter-
6
vening territories, and i t was actually i n this part o f the peninsula that one o f the
two known examples was acquired.7 The execution o f these pieces is strongly i n favour
o f attribution to Pisidia or Lycaonia—the southern half o f the Augustan province o f
Galatia (pp. 249 ff.)—but stylistic considerations also indicate that they could hardly be
8
as late as the principate o f Augustus. The history o f these parts enables a definite
terminus ante quern to be established. I n 62 B.C. Pompey annexed inland Lycaonia,
Pisidia and Southern Phrygia.9 The territory indicated for these coins remained
thereafter i n Roman hands until c. 38. Then Iconium became the capital o f a new
kingdom o f Cilicia Tracheia ruled by Polemo: but i n c. 36 he was sent to Pontus,
10

11 1
and Galatia, together w i t h AuKocovias TTaucpvAias T£ TIVOC, was granted to Amyntas. *
1
Bahrfeldt, RS. xn, 1904, p. 306 (illustrated on 7 BM (Robinson, I.e.); the provenance of the
his pi. IV, 92). other is unknown.
* CIL. x, 7210, as righdy restored by Hulsen. 8
E. S. G. Robinson confirms this.
3 CIL. x, 7344; cf. PIR. 1, 13. 78.
2 9
Cary, CAH. ix, p. 392.
4
Pliny, NH. 111, 90. 1 0
Strabo XII, 568; cf. Jones, CERP. p. 392
5 BM (E. S. G. Robinson, JHS. 1914, p. 46); n. 55.
Berlin (Imhoof-Blumer, Ant. GM. p. 302). 1 1
Dio X L I X , 32.
6
Robinson, I.e.; cf. Imhoof-Blumer and Keller, 1 2
Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 133; Syme, Anatolian
Tier- und Pflanienbilder auf Miinien, p. 23. Studies to Buckler, 1939, pp. 302 ff.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 239
C. 38—36 must, then, be the lower limit not only for a proconsul such as Rutilus, but
1
also for the foundation o f a colony, which never took place on non-Roman soil. N o w
an examination o f the deductiones attributed to Augustus i n his province o f Galatia
reveals a significant fact. Apart from Antioch i n Pisidia—whose cognomen Caesarea is
due to special circumstances and whose foundation is certainly Augustan (p. 250)—the
7, 3
colonies have the epithet Julia Augusta except one, which has Julia alone. This is
Lystra.
Here the contrast w i t h the known Augustan deductiones i n the province is so arrest-
4
ing that Ramsay cannot be right i n dismissing the distinction as * probably accidental'.
Nearer the mark is Kubitschek,5 who admits the possibility o f an original Julian
6
foundation. Kornemann suggests that Augustus carried out a deductio based on an
earlier design—vielleicht projectiert (nach cdsarischem Plan?). But the fulfilment by
Augustus o f a Julian plan should be deduced for Lystra least o f all the colonies i n his
province o f Galatia: i t is much more probable i n the case o f the others, which have
both epithets together, Julia and Augusta (the dictator may well have made such
unfulfilled plans to defend his rear during his forthcoming campaigns).? Lystra is
clearly distinguished from the other colonies by the possession o f Julia only: i t must
have been established before c. 38-36. Thus the puzzling existence o f such an early
Roman city-issue i n that region is explained: conclusive is the reverse type o f the
coin, which is closely copied, feature by feature, especially i n the treatment o f the
characteristic humped bulls, b y a later specimen with the ethnic o f Lystra (Pi. V I I I , 10)
(p. 250). This attribution is remarkably confirmed by the presence i n c. 51 B.C.—
only a few years before this coin must have been struck—of another member o f the
8
extremely rare gens Feridia somewhere i n the province o f Cilicia,* i n which Lystra
had then been for a decade. Romans cannot have been common i n Cilicia, and A .
Feridius on the coin must be a freedman o f this young knight and business man M .
10
Feridius. That Pliny merely records Lystreni, omitting to mention the colony, is
readily understandable, not on the grounds that this was founded later than his list,"
but because the document which he employs frequently neglects or misrepresents pre-
Augustan foundations (p. 226). I n the province o f Galatia, i n particular, the mention
1
Ramsay, JRS. vi, 1916, p. 83. The proble- * J p p. 252.
m t
6
P. 550.
matical colonia Caesaris dictatoris Pharos (Pliny, The fact, therefore, that no Julian settlement
7

NH.v, 128) cannot be taken as an exception to this can actually have taken place at Ninica and Germa
rule, since it is not known (1) whether the island need not (as Broughton sees, ES. iv, p. 703) lead
was ceded by Cleopatra for strategic purposes; to the conclusion that these were Domitianic and
(2) whether, as elsewhere (see below, p. 383), colonia named after Julia Titi, as Jones, CERP. pp. 123,
is a loose expression for a garrison or a conventus of 213. It is, however, just possible that they were
negotiators (cf. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, named after Caius Caesar Aug. n., like Berytus
in, p. 322 n.; Meyer, Casars Monarchic, p. 495 n. 2). (p. 259). Cf. also p. 302.
2
Kornemann 256 ff. 8
Cf. Schulze, p. 166.
3
Ibid. 260; cf. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus, 9 Cic. Fam. vm, 9; cf. Hatzfeld, p. 139.
P- 93- 4
L.c. 1 0
NH. v, 147. » As Jones, CERP. p. 496.
240 THE ROMAN COLONIES
of Sebasteni affords proof that his source was later than 27 B.C. (and probably than 25),
1

while his attribution o f the Lystreni to the same province affords additional evidence
that documents before the rule o f Amyntas (when Lystra had nothing to do w i t h
2
Galatia) were not used for this passage.
The governorship and identity o f M . Rutilus raise a number o f difficult problems.
There is no lack o f analogies, i n this transitional period, for the occurrence o f a pro-
consul's name i n conjunction w i t h the name o f a colony: thus coins honour P. Suf-
picius Rufus at Sinope under Caesar (p. 11), Q. Hortensius Hortalus at Cassandrea
under Brutus (p. 33), and M . Lurius at T u n i s Libisonis during the triumvirate (p. 205).
The raison d'etre o f each o f these three issues is commemoration o f the colonial
founder. The likelihood that Rutilus was also the deductor o f Lystra is confirmed by the
juxtaposition on these coins o f the names of proconsul and colony—as i n finite clauses
at Sinope and Dyrrhachium (with DEDVX[*V|) (pp. 252,275)—and b y the hiatus after
C O L . I V L . , where the remains o f three letters permit the restoration o f D E D . The
legend then becomes M . R V T I L V S P R O COS. COL(oniam) lVL(iam) DED(uxit).
Fortunately this fat proconsul o f the forties or early thirties B.C. can be identified.
He must be the Caesarian officer M . Sempronius Rutilus, who was second-in-command
to T . Labienus i n his campaign against the Sequani i n 52B.C.3 This branch o f the
4
Sempronii had attained curule rank i n the second century; the existence o f a duovir
called L . Sempronius Rutilus at Turiaso under Augustus (p. 170) suggests that the
present officer included a Spanish command i n his cursus honorum. But, for his present
governorship, we must search the Fasti o f Asiatic provinces.
The deductio o f Iulia Lystra must fall within the years 47-38. I t might be ascribed
to the competence o f a governor from no less than three provinces. A t the beginning
of this period provincia Cilicia, i n which Lystra had hitherto been, still existed: but
Caesar detached Cyprus to give to Egypt,* three 5ioiKf|aeis o f Phrygia returned to
Asia, and i n 43 Side had joined t h e m ; moreover, Cilicia is omitted from the list o f
6 7

8
Cassius's provinces. The remaining territories o f the old province o f Cilicia cannot
have warranted a separate governorship, and must have passed, at this date or earlier,
to provincia Syria.? The Fasti o f Cilicia, Syria and Asia must therefore be examined to
1
L.c. 7
P. Lentulus Spinther, ad Cic. Fam. xil, 15. 5;
2
Cf. Cuntz, Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie,cf. Syme, l.c. p. 325.
Suppl xvil, 1890, pp. 489, 523. 8
Cic. XI Phil. 12.
3
Caesar, BG. vn, 90. 4. I owe this identification 9 Syme, l.c. pp. 324 ff.; cf. Ganter,-p. 40; Stern-
to R. Syme. kopf, Hermes, XLVII, 1912, p. 352; Raillard, p. 35.
4
Livy XXXVII, 57, xxxix, 9; cf. Munzer, PW. The possibility, mentioned by Syme (l.c. p. 325), that
(2R.), 11,1437; Groebe, in Drumann, Grundriss der the province lingered on in diminished form until
Kulturgeschichte, in, p. 699. c. 40 is very slight; in any case, it could scarcely
5 Dio XLII, 35. 5; cf. Jones, CERP. p. 488 n. 8; have continued to support a separate proconsul at
Syme, Anatolian Studies to Buckler, p. 324. this time when incompletely Romanised provinces
6
Cic. Fam. xm, 67; cf. Marquardt, St.V. 1, were very large.
pp. 335 f.; Jones, CERP. pp. 61, 391; Syme, l.c.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 241
find room for M . Rutilus. Syria provides no place: the only uncertain year, 45-44,
1

2 3
must be allotted either to C. Antistius Vetus or to L . Volcacius Tullus. I n the C i l i -
cian lists there are probable or possible candidates for 47-46,* 46-45,5 and 44* ( i f the
province still existed [p. 240]), but 45-44 is less satisfactory: Sternkopf s attribution o f
7 8
Volcacius to this post, rather than to Syria or to no governorship at all,? is purely
conjectural. Here then is one possible date for Rutilus. But the presence o f his head
10
necessitates reservations. N o governor is so honoured under Caesar or earlier: even
P. Sittius, whose status was practically that o f a client-prince, does not thus appear at
municipium Simitthu (?) until the months after the dictator's death (p. 178). M . Rutilus,
then, could—as governor o f Cilicia—only have figured on this coin between March
44 and his recall not much later i n the same year. But i t must be admitted that even
this is very unlikely. I n the first place,provincia Cilicia had almost certainly disappeared
by 43, and there is no reason to believe that i t survived after 45, i f as long. Secondly, i f
it did survive, and i f Q. Marcius Crispus was its governor i n 44, Rutilus could scarcely
have had time to learn o f the death o f Caesar ( o f which the placing o f the proconsul's
11
head on this coin implies cognisance) before his supersession: news travelled slowly,
and the governors for 44 had already left Rome early in A p r i l . T w o or three weeks is
12

scarcely enough for a deductio and its commemorative coinage.

There remains the province o f Asia. Here, i n the regular Fasti between 46 and 38,
the only possible vacancy for a Caesarian—such as the epithet Iulia proves Rutilus
still to have been—occurs i n 39-38. Yet even this year may be occupied by a continua-
13

tion o f Plancus's tenure, or by a governorship o f M . Cocceius Nerva. There is no

obvious reason w h y Lystra should have been colonised at this date, especially when
Antony was on the verge o f disposing o f Lycaonia to a king—an indication o f a
policy opposed to colonisation (p. 250). Moreover, all other known Julio-Antonian
1
Cf. Ganter, pp. 40 ff.; Raillard, p. 35; Stern- 1 0
It has been shown above that Pietrangeli, Civilta
kopf, l.c. p. 332; Syme, l.c. It is most improbable Romana, vn, 1938, p. 10, is wrong in citing an in-
tliat L. Decidius Saxa (41) had a predecessor under stance of 59 B.C. (pp. 150 ff.); and that T. Quinctius
Antony with the title of proconsul: cf. also in 42-41 Flamininus appears on a coin of quite different
legati in Asia and Macedonia (see pp. 247, 274). character (p. 151).
3
As Sternkopf, Syme, ll.cc. 1 1
Cf. Stevenson, The Legacy of Rome, p. 163.
3
As Ganter, Philologus, LIII, 1894, pp. 134 ff. Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 4.
1 2

4
Syme, I.e., shows conclusively that Q. Marcius 1 3
P. Servilius Isauricus, 46-44 (cf. Munzer,
Philippus held this post (pace Constans, Rev. phil. PW. [2R.], 11, 1799); C. Trebonius, 44 (cf. Stein,
LVI (3 ser. v), 1931, pp. 247 ff.; Springer, Bursians PW. [2R.], vi, 2279); M. Turius leg. 42-41 (cf.
Jahresbericht, CCLX, 1938, p. 55, etc.). coins, p. 246); L. Munatius Plancus, 41-c. 39/38
5
Q. Cornuficius; cf. Syme, l.c. pp. 318 ff. (left by Antony in Asia in 41, Dio XLVIII, 24. 2; cf.
6
Q. Marcius Crispus; cf. Schwartz, Hermes, Hanslik, PW. xvi, 549, pace Ganter [Diss.], I.e.;
XXXIII, 1898, p. i86;Letz, Die Provitv(ialverwaltung retreats to islands before Labienus, Munzer, PW.
Casars, Diss. Strassburg, 1912, p. 84. xn, 259, and probably does not return, Tarn, CAH.
7
L.c, discussed without final acceptance by p. 49, pace Hanslik, l.c.); M. Cocceius Nerva, be-
Syme, I.e. 8
Ganter (Diss.), l.c. tween c. 39/38 and 36 (cf. Syme, RR. p. 266 n. 3).
9
Vaglieri, Diiionario epigrafico, 11, 1, pp. 227 f. On the subsequent Fasti, see pp. 373, 383, 385, 395.
242 THE ROMAN COLONIES
foundations i n Asia Minor had been completed at an earlier date (p. 461); none o f
them warranted a governor's coin-portrait, and the known activity o f M . Sempronius
Rutilus was as long ago as the fifties. However, the history o f the year 44-43—which
accords much better w i t h these considerations—provides a special opportunity for
a proconsulship o f Rutilus. P. Cornelius Dolabella, the Caesarian, murdered C.
Trebonius and was recognised proconsul o f Asia at least by 24 January 43, and
1
probably rather earlier. But he had left Asia and was marching on Syria b y March
7th —with a view to taking the governorship o f that province. He must have left a
2

governor behind him to deal w i t h a serious threat from the Republican P. Cornelius
Lentulus Spinther, who subsequently gained possession o f Asia by the end o f May.3
Spinther's unsuccessful opponent has not hitherto been identified. I t was, i n all prob-
ability, M . Rutilus whom Dolabella left behind, on his way to Syria, and he who had the
task o f garrisoning Lystra, on the borders o f the province. We know that provincia
4
Asia stretched as far as the city o f Side i n this year, and Western Lycaonia is therefore
most likely to fall within its borders.* Perhaps the foundation had, like so many others,
already been planned by Caesar. I t was clearly intended to guard the vital road from
Asia to Syria against attack by Antipater, a tyrant o f Republican sympathies who held
6
the neighbouring strongholds o f Derbe and Laranda. The record o f Rutilus's tenure
w i l l have vanished owing to his complete failure to contend the province w i t h P.
Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, and the breakdown o f communications.
Lystra, then, is likely to have been colonised w i t h a garrison o f veterans (like
7
Augustan foundations in the middle o f Anatolia ) by M . Sempronius Rutilus, named
governor o f Asia by P. Dolabella—perhaps on the strength o f a faked Lex Curiata*—
in the first months o f 43. Much farther westwards Rutilus can scarcely have advanced;
in view o f the rapid failure and death o f Dolabella at the hands o f Cassius i n Syria
he was lucky i f he escaped w i t h his life. This coin bears witness to the ephemeral
claim to fame o f one o f Caesar's most sinister lieutenants, Dolabella. Lystra was
planned as his strategic link between the two provinces o f Asia and Syria, at a time
when the latter o f these was a Republican stronghold and the former already falling
into Republican hands. Lystra cannot have escaped the same fate; but its retention
even after Augustus o f the single epithet Julia suggests restoration b y Antony after
Philippi. I n c. 38-36 Lystra became an enclave i n royal territories, like the colonies i n
Mauretania (p. 223): whether i t was under some form o f supervision from the king
himself, like Tingis, or depended upon a proconsul like Zilis (?) (pp. 176,175), cannot
1
Cf. Groag, PW. iv, 1306. Antipater, vide Klebs, PW. 1, 2513 (20); Jones,
2
C. Cassius ap. Cic. Fam. xn, 12. 5. CERP. p. 413 n. 20; Syme, l.c. pp. 309 ff.
3
P. Lentulus Spinther, ibid, xn, 15; Chapot, La 7
Cf. Miinzer, PW. iv, 1308.
province romaine proconsulate d'Asie, p. 309 For this as the basis of imperium see Cic. De
8

4
Spinther, l.c. lege agraria, 11, 12. 30; Stevenson, RPA p. 73* ^
y

5 This is confirmed by A. H. M. Jones. troubled periods it was often dispensed with;

6
I owe this suggestion to R. Syme, For Stevenson, ibid. p. 74.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 243
be determined. When i t returned within the frontiers o f the Empire, i t was i n a new
province, Galatia (p. 249).
It is possible to deduce the transient existence o f an equally\inrecognised colony,
founded by the forces that suppressed Rutilus, from an unattributed issue o f which
less than half-a-dozen specimens have survived. This shows a female head to right, and
a rose, inscribed C. C A R . , C. COS. (Pi. V I I , 32). I t bears no resemblance to any
1

known colonial series. But the type o f a rose is characteristic o f the coinage o f
2
Rhodes, on which i t appears continually and exclusively. Moreover, the present piece
3
is distinctly similar to specimens from the Greek series o f that city, both i n style and
in a coiffure typical o f the forties. I t is therefore not surprising to find that the literary
authorities bear witness to a period o f Roman occupation during this decade. Early i n
42, C. Cassius, with his lieutenant P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, attacked and
4
took the city, treating i t w i t h great severity; i t was then left to the tender mercy o f
6
a succession o f lieutenants, Cassius o f Parma, L . Varus 5 and finally a certain Clodius.
After the battle o f Philippi, the last-named extricated the garrison from the revolting
Rhodians, and the occupation was at an end: Antony restored its peregrine freedom to
the community.? This episode cannot but be connected w i t h the Roman currency at
Rhodes. I t is interesting and relevant that a similar rose on a denarius o f C. Cassius
8
records the occupation o f the island.
Now the names C. Car. and C. Cos. could be explained i n two different ways. They
could appear on an official coinage, like Stati. Trebo. at Lipara (p. 52): Stati. has been
identified as Statilius Taurus, and Trebo., by Republican usage, can only be his
quaestor or legatus. But the commanders at Rhodes are all k n o w n : * Car.' is suitable for
the cognomen neither o f the Cassii nor o f Clodius. There remains only one possibility;
the names must be those o f duoviri, like Tadi. Mari. at Melita, and M . Cassius M . A n t .
at Halaesa (pp. 234, 191), where the qualifying titles are omitted i n the same way, and
at about the same date. The number o f Romans evacuated by Clodius was as high as
three thousand,? and many executions and deportations by the Republicans must have
left extensive property vacant for their colonists. These facts, combined with the
existence o f the present coin, enable the deduction to be drawn that the ownerless
lands had been allotted to the soldiery, who were granted a colonial organisation.
Precisely similar Republican garrison-colonies can be identified at Melita and Cyrene
(pp. 234, 260). The analogy o f magistrates' names, likewise without titles, on coins
of those cities, and o f Halaesa, Paestum ( L . Vene. D . Fad. Epul.) and Tingis (Rex
1
Glasgow (Hu. in, p. 45), Paris. v, 807, the passage does not imply the arrival of
2
Head, BMC. Caria, p. cii. Turullius at Rhodes.
3
E.g. ibid. p. 265. 384. 7 Cf. von Gaertringen, l.c.
4
Appian, BC. iv, 65 ff.; cf. Syme, RR p. 8
Hill, Historical Roman Coins, p. 122. The ex-
20
3- planation of Alfoldi, Rom. Mitt, L, 1935, p. 147
5
Appian, BC. iv, 74. n. 6, does not supersede his interpretation, though
Ibid, v, 2. Pace von Gaertringen, PW. Suppl. it may supplement it. 9
Appian, BC. v, 2.
244 THE ROMAN COLONIES
Bocchus and Sosius Filius) (pp. 191, 175), suggests that C. Car. and C. Cos. were
deductor and adsignator respectively, combining—like L . Aclutius Gallus and his
1
colleague at Venafrum —to form a college o f duoviri coloniae deducendae or urbis
moeniundae. I t may be conjectured that the deductor is a C. Papirius Carbo: a tribune
of that name i n 90 B.C. (murdered i n 82) was o f pronounced Republican tendencies, 2

but no record has survived o f the next generation. Possibly his assistant was C.
Cosconius Calidianus (?), aedile i n 57, who was a friend o f Cicero; a Cosconius who
3

4
held a praetorship a few years later was probably the same man. The task o f these
duoviri was the settlement of veterans whose community was called a colonia, but whose
duties, like those of colonists i n Lycaonia and Pisidia, were virtually those of a garrison.
Literary evidence is silent: but the coins are explicit, since peregrine city-coinage i n the
East never bears a Latin legend. I t is not surprising that so transient and troubled a
colony has escaped notice.*
The Republican regime collapsed a few months after this issue was made: to the
first year o f the ensuing government o f Antony is to be referred another inauguratory
coinage, at Alexandria Troas. The coinage o f this town has already been mentioned i n
connection w i t h the orichalcum issues by M . Acilius (?) quaestor pro praetore i n 44 B . C . ,
whose portraits o f the dictator i t imitates (p. 13). Accompanying the head is the
6
inscription P R I N C E P S F E L I X , whose peculiar applicability to Julius has been dis-
cussed. The reverses of the two denominations (c. 205-5, 7'5 grains) show a figure o f
12

Athena holding a small Nike (Pi. V I I I , 5),? and two yoked oxen seen i n perspective. 8

O n both varieties the legend i s C O L O N I A I V L I A , w i t h I I V l R i n the field. There are

also two monograms: one is PE. or EP., no doubt one o f the duoviri, who are often
mentioned singly on early colonial coins.? The second monogram has always been
10 1 1
interpreted as V E . , but A L E . is certainly the correct version:" i t is conclusive that
13 1 4
a variant actually has A L E X . The non-recognition o f these ethnics has been due
1
to a confusion o f the lettering with the beaded edge. Gaebler * sees that the style is not
16
Macedonian: the evidence o f provenance points conclusively to Asia Minor. In
1
CIL. x, 4876: cf. below, p. 285. 9 E.g. Panormus, Halaesa, Thapsus.
2
Cic. Brut. 62; Fam. ix, 21. Cf. above, p. 215. 10
NG. in, p. 99; cf. Imhoof-Blumer,* MG. p. 89.
3
Cic. Vatin. 16; cf. Munzer, PW. iv, 1668,1670. 107c; von Sallet, ZfN. xxm, 1902, p. 186.
4
Cf. Stella Maranca, Mem. della R. Ac. dei 11
Monogram 9 a.
Lincei (sc.-mor.), vi, 2, 1926, p. 334; cf. Plutarch, 1 2
Clearly legible at Berlin: perceptible at BM,
Caes. 51. Athens, Istanbul.
5 It is possible that other short-lived and obscure1 3
Berlin. 1 4
Monogram yb.
colonies were founded on the islands off Asia 15
NG., I.e., pace Imhoof-Blumer, l.c.
Minor, e.g. at Samos:—Broughton, ES. iv (1938), 1 6
Found in Cappadocia (Riggauer, SB. Munchen,
pp. 703 f.; Gardthausen 1, p. 831; Fabricius, Ath. 11,1897, pp. 530, 533; cf. Gaebler, ZfN. xxm, 1902,
Mitt, ix, 1884, p. 260; Hatzfeld, p. 98 n. 1. p. 186; Munich); another from central district
6
Not PRINCIPI: Imhoof-Blumer, GM. p. 772. (Oberhummer and Zimmerer, Durch Syrien und
7 BM, Berlin, Istanbul, Athens, Gotha. Kappadokien, 1899); from Izmir (Friedlander, BB.
8
Berlin, Munich. 1868, p. 27; Berlin).
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 245
1
particular, specimens have been found i n the North-Western area to which the counter-
2 3
mark o f a Capricorn is also peculiar. There existed a suitable colony i n this region.
4
Colonia Alexandria Troas—which commonly employs either o f these names alone —
bore the title Augusta,* perhaps from 20 B.C. But its tribe (Aniensis) is extremely rare
6

7 8
for original Augustan foundations. Kornemann remarks: alle augustische Colonien,
soweit sie bei Plinius vorkommen, gehen auf den agrippischen Teil der Reichsstatistik
quriick und miissen daher vor 742 = 12.. .gegriindet sein. But, lacking knowledge o f
these coins, he ignores the possibility that, like so many other towns, Alexandria
Troas was first a colonia Julia, and then, not Julia Augusta, but Augusta. When
Suetonius records that Julius planned migraturum Alexandream vel Ilium,? the sense o f
the passage, and the distant position and alien status o f the Egyptian Alexandria, make
it by n o means impossible that the neighbour o f Ilium, Alexandria Troas, was the
10
object o f this belief: i t was certainly i n great favour w i t h the dictator, and could supply
13
a cause for Horace's" and Vergil's" insistence that T r o y must never be rebuilt. These
coins, with their monograms, at least show conclusively that Alexandria Troas was a
1 4
colonia Julia. The countermark A L E . affixed to a coin o f the neighbouring Julian
colony o f Lampsacus (p. 246)—with a similar portrait o f the dictator- —confirms the 2

early date suggested b y style and type.

The issue must have been made either shortly before, o r shortly after, the a d -
ministration o f Brutus and Cassius. The later date is the more probable, since the
denarii from which the portraits on the orichalcum issue were derived d i d not appear,
at the earliest, until a very short time before the dictator's death (pi. 4). Moreover,-
the present coinage, being imitated from the orichalcum series, is twice removed from
the denarii, so that a considerable time-lag is probable. A similar portrait appears at
Dyme (p. 264), for whose colonisation.Kornemann 5 suggests a terminus post quern o f
x

44 B.C.—and there is always a presumption that the dictator's colonisation plans were
16
left for Antony to accomplish. By the analogy o f many other isolated Roman city-

1
Found in Mysia (BM; acquired by Montague).
2
Athens. Other countermarks on this group 9 Cats. 79; cf. Barbagallo, Nuova Rivista storica,
include a palm-branch (Gotha) and a bird (Istan- VI, 1922, pp. 141 ff.
bul). PW. 1, 1396; cf. Livy xxxv, 42, xxxvn, 35.
10

3
E.g. at Pitane (Vienna; cf. Wad. 991) and on Carm. 111, 3. 57 ff. etc.; cf. Syme, RR. p. 305.
11

'colonist' series (p. 112) (in trade, Istanbul-Pera). " Aen. xn, 828, etc.
4
Name Alexandria used by Strabo, xui, 593; 1 3
This issue and the existence of the colony show
Ptol. v, 2. 4, vm, 17. 9; cf. Head, HN. p. 931, that Broughton (ES. iv, p. 713) need not have been
COL. ALEXAND. AVG. surprised to find no Greek coinage of Alexandria
5 CIL. in, 391. Troas at this rime.
Weber, Princeps, 1, p. 252* n. 672; cf. Gardt- Cast at Winterthur. Monogram 9 c (NZ. 1884,
1 4

hausen 11, pp. g ff.; Paoli, Mil. d'arch. et d'hist.

4 7 p. 296).
LV, 1938, p. 101. 5 107.
x

7
Kubitschek, Imp. p. 190; only one other Cf. Hill, Historical Roman Coins, p. 111; Rice
1 6

(Caesaraugusta). Holmes, The Roman Republic, 111, p. 321 n. 3.

246 THE ROMAN COLONIES
issues, it is necessary to conclude that this is the foundation-coinage o f the new colony.
The duovir Pe. or Ep. is probably the adsignator, like similar officials mentioned w i t h -
out a colleague at Saguntum and Venafrum (pp. 158, 285).
A n identification o f the deductor o f Alexandria Troas can be attempted from ex-
amination o f the coinage o f another Julian colony i n the same region:

(1) C. G. I . L . diademed head o f Julius to r i g h t — Q . L V C R E T I [ 0 ] L . P O N T I [ 0 ]

1
I I V I R . , M . T V R I O L E G . priest ploughing w i t h oxen (Pi. V I I I , 7 ) .
(2) same as last—Q. L V C R E T I [ 0 ] L . P O N T I [ 0 ] I I V I R . C O L . D E D . P. same as
2
last ( P i . V I I I , 6)
(3) C. G. I . L . head o f Janus—inscription o f (1), abbreviated. Female figure
wearing polos, w i t h cornucopiae and amphora.^
(4) same as last—inscription as last. Prow. 4

(5) same as last—inscription o f (2), but C O L . D E D . PR. Prow.5

(6) C. G. I . L . female head to right, w i t h wreath o f corn-ears and ear-ring—same
inscription as last: type o f (3). Variant w i t h C O L . D E D V C . PR.?
6

8
These coins are found on the Propontis, and are countermarked w i t h a Capricorn and
10 12
C. G.9 (a Parian stamp ), A L E . , " and a cornucopiae, the last two both found also at
13
Alexandria Troas. Furthermore, the head on (6) closely recalls the earliest issues from
Parium. But the general attribution to that mint is directly contradicted by the ethnic.
There is no L(aus, etc.) i n the title o f Parium, which is C. G. I . P. C. G. I . L . must
represent a different town, and the L . , parallel to the P., is likely to be the initial o f its
ethnic. W e must look for a Julian colony, w i t h the initial L , near Parium. I t has
escaped notice that just such a colony existed, albeit for a very short time, at Lampsacus.
Appian, relating the Asiatic adventure o f Sex. Pompeius i n 35 B.C., says AduyccKov §K
14

Trpo5ocrias KcrreAapev, f| TTOAAOOS elx^v 'ITOAOUS e§ i-rroiKiascos Taiou Kalaapos.

Here there is no need, or reason, to assume the existence o f non-colonial coloni such
as occur at Tralles (p. 383). frrou^etv and ITTOIKOS are used by Strabo, * and probably
1

16 11
in other passages o f Appian, to describe a formal deductio coloniae, and this is its
1
Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 252. 129 (Paris), BM, 11
Imhoof-Blumer, NZ. 1884, p. 296 (cast at
own collection. Winterthur); cf. above, p. 245, Monogram 9 c.
2
Ibid. 130 (Munich), 128 (Munich), BM. 12
Berlin.
Misread by Hiibner, MLI. p. 38, to include the 13
Cast at Winterthur (p. 245 n. 14); Athens.
ethnic of Dertosa. 14
BC. v, 137.
3
Imhoof-Blumer, NZ. 1884, p. 296 (Klagenfurt). X
5 VIII, 381.
4
Ibid. (Paris). 16
BC. 11, 135; 1,96.
5 Robinson, NC. 1921, p. 8. 6 (BM). 17
The implied definition by Menander Rhetor
6
Ibid. 7 (BM). 7
Berlin. (p. 83, Heeren), fj yap dnrcoidadn.—rj lirriu^Ori f|
8
Robinson, l.c. oXcos OUK oOaa irporepov £TTCOK{O6TI, is irrelevant,
9 Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 252. since here there was in any case no question of
10
Similar countermark at Parium: in trade founding a city where none had existed before.
(Istanbul-Pera).
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 247
1 2
regular meaning. The same may be concluded o f Lampsacus. I t is not surprising
that, after its occupation by Sextus and his death, no more was heard o f the colony.
3
Pliny, whose source is not earlier than A c t i u m , omits all mention o f i t ; Strabo's
4
similar neglect is even less significant, since he even omits Parium. The G. i n the style
of both these cities is G(emina) or G(emella). The latter w o r d is correctly under-
stood (in the case o f Acci and Tucci) to refer to cities colonised by two legions—
coloniae a legionibus gemetlis conditae;* but either epithet might well refer to t w i n
6
foundations, such as Lampsacus and Parium. The two cities may have shared a legion
(cf. p. 251). Mommsen, supported by inscriptions, rightly interprets the duoviri as
7

I I V I R ( i ) COL(onia) D E D V C ( r a ) PR(imi)—yet another pair o f inauguratory magi-

strates. One o f these, L . Pontius, is probably a relative o f the business man A . Pontius
8
A . f. who resided at about this date at Mytilene. '
The portrait o f Julius is modelled on denarii o f P. Sepullius Macer,9 and is therefore
less likely to date from the lifetime o f Julius than from the first years o f the regime o f
Antony (p. 245). This is i n accordance w i t h conclusions reached concerning Alex-
andria Troas, and is especially probable i n view o f the existence o f an analogous
deductio coinage at Philippi (p. 274). The latter, o f similar style and portraiture, has the
name o f Q. Paquius Rufus legatus, who invites comparison w i t h M . Turius here.
10
Turius—whose daughter is likely to have been the heroine o f the Laudatio Turiae —
was probably i n charge o f Asia from the battle o f Philippi until the arrival o f L .
Munatius Plancus, probably late i n 41 (p. 241). The title legatus for governors was
frequent i n the forties: i n particular, i t was much more appropriate than that o f pro-
consul when, as at this time, the triumvir, who held a superior imperium, was himself in
the same district." Pompeian governors i n Spain and Sicily, M . Eppius and L . Junius,
used the same title i n similar circumstances (pp. 22, 30). P. Sulpicius Rufus, at
Sinope, gives an indication o f the extent to which the use o f titulature fluctuated i n this
transitional period (p. 252): but the coinage and status o f Q. Paquius Rufus, who
founded Philippi, w i l l confirm that at least one title never existed—legatus coloniae
deducendae. Before the triumvirate, governors and others were entrusted w i t h schemes
of settlement which warranted the honorific title o f praefectus and the sneers o f Cicero
(p. 9 ) ; the title lapsed after Philippi, when i t became customary for governors to
monopolise the founding o f new colonies i n their provinces. Thus M . Turius, governor

1
E.g. by Dindorf, Thes. Graecae linguae 5 Thesaurus Ling. Lat., s.v.; cf. Hiibner, PW. I,
(Stephanus), s.v.; Liddell and Scott, s.v.; Magie, De 140. 6
Cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 582.
Romanorum vocabulis, p. 60. 7
Cf. Robinson, NC. 1921, p. 8.
2
Broughton, ES. iv, 1938, pp. 582,703, reserves 8
IG. xn, 88; cf. Hatzfeld, p. 92 n. 4.
his judgment about Lampsacus, offering several 9 E.g. BMCR. pi. LIV, 17, etc.
conjectures, but ignoring these coins. Hahn, Rom 10
ILS. 8393; cf. (most recently) Giglioli,
und Romanismusy p. 61, rightly accepts the colony. Bollettino dell* Association Archeologica Romana, I
3
Jones, CERP. pp. 491 ff. 1937, pp. 2 ff.
4
Ibid. p. 401 n. 98. 1 1
Cf. Dio XLVIII, 24; Raillard, l.c.
248 THE ROMAN COLONIES
and deductor i n Asia, is commemorated by the short-lived and unknown colony of
Lampsacus, whose colonists were among the olKicrOriaouevoi at Caesar's death whom
Brutus had not had time to settle (p. 33).
The colony which was Lampsacus's twin, Parium, is also commemorated by an
isolated issue. I t has the ethnic C(olonia) G(emina) \(ulid) V(ariana\ types o f a female
1
head and praefericulum, and usually two pairs o f signatures:

(1) M V C , PIC. im(Wn?) l(ure) D(icundo) D(ecurionum) D(ecreto). 2

(2) C. M A T V I N V S , T . A N I C I V S AED.3 (or the same i n the Ablative ). 4

Since no other quattuorviral coinage is found at Parium, and there is a close resem-
blance i n type and denomination to the foundation-pieces o f Lampsacus, i t is necessary
to conclude that the present issues commemorate the contemporary deductio o f the
sister-colony at Parium.5 This conclusion is confirmed by a coin-portrait o f Julius
here i n the second century, which bears witness to a Julian plan (p. 318).? The founda-
6

tion-coinage o f Calagurris (p. 165) provides a parallel for the appearance o f the aediles
in addition to the senior college; w i t h the former, probably, was the responsibility for
the coinage (p. 177). I t has been shown that M . Turius legatus is likely to have been
the deductor o f Parium i n 42-41: the four personages here recorded were the first
magistrates o f the colony. The duovir comitialis is a Mucius, probably from the
clientela o f the Scaevolae: his colleague may belong to any one o f a number o f obscure
gentes? The Anicii were a Praenestine family which provided an Emperor five centuries
10
later,? and a L . Anicius Paetinas i n the time o f Augustus. Matuinus is an entirely un-
11
known Italian gentilicium which may also be represented by M A T . on a Republican
17.
denarius.
Unlike other colonies i n the region, Parium produces a second coinage o f an equally
isolated character, probably including a dupondius and an as:
1
A few pieces have no signature (Imhoof- Spehr, De summis magistratibus etc., pp. 31 f., and
Blumer, MG. p. 251. 120—1), and a few no ethnic Mantey, De gradu et statu quaestorum, p. 32.
either (Istanbul: found in Dardanelles region). Possibly this is the solution of the difficulty con-
2
Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 118; variants. cerning Narona, which is a colony in Pliny's list
3 Ibid. 123. (NH. in, 142; cf. Kornemann, p. 530), but has
4
Ibid. 122. quattuorviri (cf. Sherwin-White, p. 170 n. 3).
5 This view, explaining Gemina or Gemella, seems 8
Picarius (Schulze, pp. 366, 415, 483), Picatius
to the present writer to have more to recommend it (ibid. pp. 235, 366), Picentius (ibid. p. 523),
than Broughton's conjecture (ES. iv, p. 702) that the Picidius (ibid. pp. 234, 428), Pictorius (ibid.
colony was founded in c. 35 B.C. PP- 333, 587).
6
Berlin. 9 Seeck, PW. 1, 2198 (Olybrius).
CIL. in, 14712^; cf. Schulze, p. 130 n. 1.
7
The appearance of quattuorviri, as at colonia 10

Thapsus, provides yet another piece of evidence 11

Schulze, p. 190.
against the limitation of these to municipia (showing " BMCR. 11, p. 236. UAT(ienus) is the con-
that, for a time, they were equally appropriate to jecture of Pais, Ricerche sulla storia, ser. II, p.
provincial colonies). For similar instances see 296.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 249
(1) I M P . CAESAR D I V I F., C. G. I . P. head o f Octavian to r i g h t — M . A G R I P P A
head o f Agrippa to right ( P i . I X , 2). 1

(2) M . B A R B A T I O , M A N . A C I L I O I I V I R . , C. G. I . P. as last ( P i . I X , 1)—P.

V I B I O SAC. CAES., Q. B A R B A . P R A E F . P R O I I V I R . Priest ploughing
2 3
w i t h two oxen. A variant has the names o f the duoviri only, one on each side.

I t is noteworthy that a change has occurred from quattuorviri to duoviri. A similar

4
phenomenon is found at Tingis, Gades and Asido: i t is characteristic o f the period.
But the appearance o f a second isolated coinage o f this sort strongly suggests a special
commemorative occasion. The portraiture o f Octavian is o f the period immediately
after Actium, to which his titulature is also suitable; but this issue cannot be considered
to celebrate the first decennium o f the colony—which might fall i n 31—since the magi-
strates are not quinquennales but duoviri. O n the other hand there are, at this time,
many examples o f a second draft o f colonists, involving the restitutio o f the colony
(p. 257); and there is evidence that P. Vedius Pollio, Octavian's procurator et praeses o f
Asia i n 30-29, concerned himself w i t h adsignatio (p. 383). I t is highly probable that
he was adsignator at Parium, and that the deductor was the princeps himself, who spent
6
much o f these two years i n Asia.* The colony naturally, at this date, remains Iulia.
The unusual honour to Agrippa suggests that, as at Apamea i n 28-27 (p. 25 5), he was,
being consul, associated i n the patrocinium o f the city. The duoviri however (who were
probably elected at the beginning o f the year, before the restitutio was announced) are
not Octavian and Agrippa, but two other senators. M . Barbatius, who had coined as
quaestor of Antony in 41 B . C . , ? is represented by a freedman; M ' . Acilius—known to us
1
from Cicero's Pro Scauro —is represented by the local priest o f Divus Julius. The
fact that the worship o f Julius by Roman citizens was officially organised i n Asia i n 29?
suggests that the present coinage, and the refoundation o f the colony, should be
attributed to that year rather than to 30.
Thereafter the mint passed into the employment o f the aerarium (p. 111). The
colonies o f Asia, then, like those o f Sicily and Sardinia, do not coin except to com-
memorate foundations or refoundations.

12. G A L A T I A : Lystra, Antioch i n Pisidia

The foundation-issue o f Lystra as a colonia Iulia was made by a transient proconsul o f
Asia in 43 (p. 238). I t fell to the Republicans, but its subsequent retention o f the epithet
Iulia without the addition o f Augusta suggests restoration after Philippi. However, its
next issue occurred after the interlude o f royal rule i n Lycaonia, and the subsequent
1
BMC. 85. 2
BMC. 84. 3 Berlin. Cf. Kornemann 110.
6

4
Cf. McElderry,//tf. 1918, p. 81. 7 PIR. 1, 352. 50.
2

Cf. Waddington, Pastes des provinces asiatiques, Cf. PIR. 1, 11.

8 2

9 Cf. Nock, CAH. x, p. 485.

250 THE ROMAN COLONIES
formation o f the province o f Galatia. I t includes two pieces, probably dupondius and
1
as, w i t h portraits o f Augustus which proclaim a date at the end o f his principate:
(1) I M P E . A V G V S T P laureate head to left; cornucopiae—COL. I V L . F E I (sic).
3
GEM. L V S T R A priest ploughing w i t h two humped oxen (Pi. V I I I , i o ) .
(2) I M P . A V G laureate head to right— CERERIS Ceres seated to
left (Pi. V I I I , n ) . 4

The reappearance o f Ceres on later coins o f Lystra* confirms the attribution o f (2) to
this mint, as its style suggests. N o w an altar to Ceres was inaugurated in Rome i n
A . D . 7 —a date appropriate to the portrait-models used for these coins. When i t is
6

recollected that this was the fiftieth year o f the colony's existence, and that Uselis,
Carthage and Cirta—beside peregrine cities—celebrate their half-centenary b y equally
isolated coinage (p. 153), i t is impossible to resist the conclusion that these which, b y
every analogy, are likely to be commemorative issues served the same purpose.
The only other Roman city in provincia Galatia which issued money under Augustus
is Pisidian Antioch. The colony there was o f a singular character: i t was not Iulia or
Augusta, but Caesarea. I t was founded at an early enough date for Drusus senior,
who died i n 9 B.C., to be twice duovirf and i t is the only colony i n Galatia o f which
8
Pliny's source knows. Moreover, a certain Caristanius, who was praefectus pro
duoviro i n c. 10-7 B.C., was already not a veteran o f the first establishment.? But
10
Suetonius points out that the title Caesarea implies a regal origin: reges in suo quisque
regno Caesareas urhes condiderunt. I t is very probable that Amyntas initiated this habit,"
and that on his death the distinctive epithet was maintained without change." But the
13
colony itself cannot have been founded during the government o f Amyntas. Coins
14
of Vespasian found there commemorate L E G . V . and L E G . V I ( * . ) , the latter
x
probably the seventh legion 5 commanded by M . Lollius, the first Resident i n Galatia.
Veterans from these legions were probably settled at Antioch not long after the death o f
Amyntas—probably when the provincial era was inaugurated i n 20-19 » * B c 1 6

This attribution is confirmed by the * Patricia' portrait-model o f the inauguratory

1
Late Lugdunum. 10
Aug. 60.
Broughton, CJ. 1935, p. 44-
2 1
The form of the princeps titulature is strange, 11

since the Possessive Genitive is a Republicanism 12

Ramsay,//?^ 1916, p. 83, more accurately than
not revived on official coinage until the Civil Wars Cuntz, Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Inst. XXV, 1929,
of A.D. 68-69 (cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. pp. lxixf.). P- 77-
3
BMC. Lystra 1; cf. Wad. 4790; NC. 1893, 13
Not as early as 29 B . C ; cf. last section, Ramsay,
p. 17; ZfN. 1890, p. 14; Rn. 1883, p. 57. l.c. p. I I I .
Ritterling, ZfN. xxxvm, 1928, p. 56.
4
Berlin ('uncertain*). 14

5 Head, HN. p. 714. *5 Cf. CIL. in, 6826.

Cf. Ramsay, Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939),
6
Wilhelm, Das romische Sakralwesen, Diss. 16

Strassburg, 1915, p. 84. p. 203, Repeating the conclusion (apparently un-

7 Cf. Calder,/ftS. 1913, p. 100. known to him) of Bosch, Kaiserdaten auf klein-
8
Pliny, NH. v, 94. asiatischen Miin^en, s.v. Tavium. This is also ignored
9 JRS. 1914, pp. 253 f. by Ruge, PW. xix, 1107.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 251
1
issue. This includes a piece whose attribution here is indicated b y its inscription and
2
Pisidian provenance:
3
CAESAR head of Augustus to r i g h t — A V G V S T V S , C O L . CAES, two legionary
eagles (those o f the two legions mentioned above) and two vexilla (Pi. I X , 5).
4
H i l l also cites a second piece o f larger denomination found i n the same district: i t
reads IMP. A T R . P O T . , accompanied by a head of the princeps, and has on the
reverse a priest ploughing w i t h two humped oxen, and an illegible inscription. There is
a second and unpublished example o f this coin,* revealing an unusual legend which
confirms the evidence o f provenance—PARENS C A E S A R E A C O L . (Pi. V I I I , 12).
The word parens might refer to Augustus (who is described as IMP. A V G V S T . T R .
POT. on the obverse), but is more likely to be connected w i t h the title o f the colony:
since the other Pisidian foundations were not made until the construction o f the Via
6
Selaste i n c. 6 B . C . , Antioch might well consider itself their parent-city or UT|TP6TTOAIS.
Relevant to this title is an inscription describing Antioch and Lystra as sister-towns:
TT)V AauTrpoT&rny 'Avnox&ov KOACOVIOCV fj AauTrpoTccrT) Aucrrpicov KoAcovia Tf|V
7
&S6A9TIV Top Tfjs ouovoias cxy&AuocTi h-aiurjaev. I t is clear that the two colonies con-
sidered themselves senior b y a generation to the other foundations i n the province.
The two coins o f Antioch both imitate heads o f c. 19-17 B . C . and manifestly have the
8

character o f a single bidenominational foundation-issue. Their dates confirm Ramsay's

attribution o f the deductio to c. 20-19 - ' B c

13. P O N T U S E T B I T H Y N I A : Sinope, Heraclea, Apamea

One o f the governors o f this province,* P. Sulpicius Rufus, has already been ascribed
to the years 46-45, i n the latter o f which a colony was founded at Sinope (p. 12). The
unknown coin struck there w i t h his name bears witness to this date b y its style,
which is considerably earlier than that o f Sinopitan coins o f 38 B.C. I t appears to
associate governor and town i n a finite sentence, which by all analogies must refer to
his deductio o f the colony (p. 240)—especially as, unlike nearly all its subsequent
10
coinage, i t bears no date b y the colonial era. The only extant specimen reads as
follows:
C O L O N . F E L . S I N . , P. SVLP. turreted head to right o f the city-goddess
F. R V F . P R O COS. P O N T I F E apex, securis, simpulum
and aspergiltum (Pi. V I I I , 13).
1
Hill, NC. 1914, p. 299. 10. 6
Ramsay, l.c. p. 216.
2
Ibid, n (BM, Berlin, Vienna); pace Imhoof- 7
Sterrett, Wolfe Expedition, 352.
Blumer, KM. 9. 8
'Patricia* and cistophoric tetradrachm.
3 9
A V A V C T V S (sic) on BM specimen. For the Fasti of Pontus and Bithynia at this
4
NC. 1914, p. 299. 40. time see p. 12.
5 1 0
Berlin: it lies unaccountably among the coins Paris,
of Caesarea Panias (which was not a colony).
252 THE ROMAN COLONIES
There are about ten letters missing: a number o f these can be restored from a
description, by E. Babelon, o f a now inaccessible example (the only one hitherto
x
published) :
DICQFRVFR

The last o f the letters deciphered by him is seen from the extant piece to be not an R
but a P. Since the governors name was P. Sulpicius Rufus, i t is certain that the
inscription continues from obverse to reverse: the missing coin enables the interpreta-
tion Q(uinti) ¥(ilius\ supplying the hitherto unknown praenomen o f his father. Thus
we have C O L O N . F E L . SIN., P. S V L P . — Q . F. R V F . P R O COS. P O N T I F E
2
D I C , w i t h about six missing characters. A n X may be supplied. Since Sulpicius is
3
unlikely to have omitted his cognomen imperatoris recently w o n i n Illyricum, and
since also, for the reasons already given, he seems to have founded Sinope, the rest o f
the gap is satisfactorily rilled b y [ I M P . D E ] D . Such foundations were made b y the
orders o f the dictator, and later b y those o f the triumvirs or princeps (p. 292): the 4

formula is Iussu C. Caesaris? Iussu Caesaris Augusti? Iussu Aug. (p. 289). The final
letters I C , placed second and third i n Babelon's description, are therefore very likely to
represent \(ussu) C(aesaris). The whole inscription w i l l then be:

COLON(zazn) FEL(icem) SlN(ppen) P. SVLP(icius) Q(uinti) F(ilius) RVF(us)

P R O CO(»)S(«&) P O N T I F E [ X \MP(erator) D E ] D ( « * w ) \(ussu) C(aesaris).

O n his official coinage struck at Amisus, Rufus is only entitled P R O PR. ^ Originally
only governors w i t h armies had been entitled to the proconsular title, but towards the
7
end o f the Republic this rule became abrogated, and i n addition proconsuls o f
8
praetorian rank became common; so that Ganter's? attribution o f this title to all
10
governors o f the triumvirs applies at least to the more important provinces. Sulpicius's
elevation i n rank during his governorship is to be explained by the suddenly enhanced
importance o f certain Eastern governorships, especially this one," owing to Caesar's
preparations for world-conquest: the titulature o f the contemporary governor o f
1
Asia, the consular P. Servilius Isauricus," underwent a precisely similar change. *
Issues by the same colony continue for many years. Almost every specimen

1
Rec. 75 a: Grand Duke Mihailovitch coll. 7
Marquardt, St. V. p. 381 n. 3.
2
The pontificate of Sulpicius is unknown to 8
Cf. Mommsen, St.R* 11, 1, p. 244 n. 2.
Fasti (p. 287). 3
Cic. Fam. xm, 77. 1. 9 p. .45.
4
The tribe of Sinope is unfortunately un- 1 0
Pace Marquardt, St.V. p. 193, of Pontus-
certain: Reinach, Rev. arch. 1916, p. 341, pace Bithynia.
Kubitschek,7/n/\p.252. For DEDVXITseep.275. " Syme, Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939),
5 Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, ch. 104. p. 322; cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, IV,
6
Liber Coloniarum (Feldm. p. 237): cf. also pp. 162 f.
Pais, Memorie della R. Ac. dei Lincei (sc.-mor.), vi, Cf. Munzer, PW. (2/?.), 11, 1799.
1 2

2, 1926, p. 394 on Feldm. p. 220 1. 1. 1 3

Cic. Fam. XIII, 67 but.; cf. 68 init.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 253
1
is dated; calculations by Kubitschek show that the era i n use followed the Roman
calendar. Though he is wrong i n stating that no other Roman city ever dates its coin-
2
age, this chronological system is the distinctive feature o f an important but much
neglected and misquoted series.3 A number o f the coins repay individual attention. I t
has often been said that colonia Iulia Sinope bore the cognomen o f Caesarea;* but
Babelon's reading o f [C. I . ] C . F. A N . X I X . 5 is denied not only by a variant o f the same
6
date and type w i t h C. F. I . SI. A N . X I X . , and by the lack o f analogy, but by his own
illustration. He misreads C. F. L A N . X V . (31 B.C.) (Pi. I X , 4) as [C • • • • I.]F.-I(?)AN.
7 8
X I . (Forrer reads C. I . F. S. A N . X V . ) . O n no coin i n the whole series is there a
sign o f the epithet Caesarea. The last-named coin possesses the pontifical type o f the
foundation-issue, but its style is so much more developed that i t must be considerably
later. The ethnics on the issues o f 38 B.C. are also o f the form C. F. I . , but on all
dated issues after 31 appears C. I . F . ; however, the latter form was already permissible
before Actium, since i t is found on an undated coin w i t h D I V O I V L I O and the
features o f Antony.* Another undated piece, probably later, bears the portrait and
10
name o f Diogenes.
1
NZ. 1908, p. 68.
3
A later coin with ANN. C X X X . (Paris) has as ethnic not C. I. F. (as Rec. 1, p. 200) but C. G. I. P.
( = Parium ).
3 Date Types
(I) VIII 38 B.C. head r. of Julius—cornucopiae and clasped hands (Milne, NC. 1935,
p. 194: Oxford, Berlin, Vienna)
(*) VIII 38 do.—head r. of Antony (Vienna)
(3) XV 3i turreted female head r.—apex, securis, simpulum, aspergillum (Paris, mis-
read by Rec. 75) (PI. I X , 4)
(4) XIX 27 female head r.—plough (Stroganoff coll., misread by Rec. 76)
(5) XX(?) 26(?) bulFs head—simpulum (Berlin: KM. 5)
(6) xxn 24 head r. of Augustus—cornucopiae and globe (BM: KM. 6, Weber 4835)
(7) XXIII 2
3 do.—diademed head r. of Julius (Berlin)
(8) XXIII 23 do., 1.—star (Naples, cf. prob. BM: Rec. 83)
(9) X X X I I 14 do., r.—heads (facing outwards) of Caius and Lucius (Vienna)
(10) XXXV 11 do. (Glasgow: Hu. 14)
(") X X X V I 10 do. (Berlin, Cahn sale, 66, pi. 9: Rec. 85)
(12) X X X V I I 9 do. (Rec. 86)
(13) X X X I X 7 do. (Berlin: Rec. 87)
(14) XLII 4 " do. (Berlin: Rec. 89)
(>5) XLII 4 do.—heads (facing inwards) of Caius and Lucius (Istanbul: Rec. 88)
(.6) L(?) A.D. (?)
5
do., 1.—head 1. of Tiberius (Berlin: misquoted by Rec. 90)
(•7) LI 6 do.—vase (Paris: Rec. 90a)
(18) LI 6 do.—altar, wreath (Rome)
(19) LIX 14 do. r.—turreted head r. of city-goddess (in trade: Rec. 90b)
4
E.g. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, p. 1007. 5
Rec. 76.
6 Rec. j6a. 7
Rec. 75. 8
Rb. 1900, p. 288.
9 Vienna: Rec. 74. 1 0
Paris: Rec. 73a; cf. Rn. 1914, p. 14.
254 THE ROMAN COLONIES
I t is noteworthy that here the head of Augustus appears as early as 24 B.C., and is not
again omitted; that Antony, and at first Augustus, honour the dictator, whose appear-
ances at colonies are regularly restricted to his own foundations; that the grandsons o f
the princeps receive continual prominence, to the exclusion o f all other types, from a
date as early as 15 B.C.; and finally that, contrary to the opinion o f Babelon, Tiberius is
once honoured under Augustus. Eastern colonies, unlike those i n the West, often
persistently omit all mention o f their duoviral colleges: here, instead, is the formula
E X D . D . The coinage is sporadic, and was no doubt not struck at regular intervals,
but, as at Corinth (p. 296), when needed.
I t has escaped notice that coinage exists o f another Julian colony i n the same pro-
vince. Unattributed hitherto has been the following piece, apparently unique:

T \ _ V O M A N I V S I I V I R Q V I N Q . head o f Hercules to right.

M A N ( ? ) . F L A M ( ? ) . Q V I N Q . I T E R , head o f Mercury to right w i t h caduceus
(PI. I X , 3).'

The style and fabric o f this coin suggest the triumviral period, and indicate attribu-
tion to Northern Anatolia, beyond the boundaries o f provincia Asia.* The double
3
tenure o f M \ Flaminius ( i f that is his name) bears witness to the survival o f the colony
for at least ten years. Yet the appearance of the piece at once gives the impression that
4
any known colonial series is out o f the question. The only other eligible foundation is
Heraclea Pontica; and the eliminative argument is supported by positive considerations.
Hercules was the tutelary deity o f that city,5 and on its earliest known currency o f
6
imperial date his head shows striking affinities w i t h the same type on the present issue:
similarities o f fabric strengthen the resemblance. Mercury, too, appears on other
coins o f the town.? Moreover, Heraclea is known to have held a colony, planned by
8
Julius and completed i n his lifetime or soon after, which survived until its suppression
in the late thirties by Adiatorix, tyrant o f the peregrine portion o f the double com-
munity .9 Adiatorix claimed the connivance o f Antony, but whether this was false or
the triumvir was dissatisfied w i t h the loyalty o f the colony is not known. A t all events
this disappeared after a career long enough to include the two quinquennia to which the
present coin refers, but short enough to account for the isolated character o f the issue.
Thus style, type and historical considerations combine to require attribution to Hera-
clea. The issue commemorates the first (and only) decennium o f the ephemeral colony:
a coin o f Babba, which equally lacks foundation-coinage, commemorates a similar
1
Paris. 6
Own collection, not in Rec, with the name of a
2
For general considerations see below, Ap- proconsul.
pendix 11, p. 478. 7 E.g. Rec. 158, 169, 178.
3
Municipia do not occur in Asian provinces: 8
Kornemann 112; Jones, CERP. pp. 163, 425
cf. Jones, GC. p. 132. n. 30.
4
Of these Apamea is still to be discussed, p. 255. 9 Strabo XII, 542. Ruge, PW. vm, 43, entirely
5 Cf. BMC. Pontus, pp. 139 ff. ignores this incident and the whole colonial episode.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 255
occasion (p. 222). A single insignificant piece testifies to Heraclea's part i n Caesar's
1
colonial scheme. I f the foundation was completed by the dictator, the issue is to be
dated to 3 5-34 B . C . ; i f it was left to Antony, the date is 32-31, not more than a few weeks
before the coup o f Adiatorix. One o f the magistrates, T . Vomanius, is a member o f a
7.
rare but authentic Etruscan gens.
A n ambitious series i n three denominations recalls a more successful colony i n the
same province. The city has, however, never been rightly identified, owing to the
invariable misreading and so misunderstanding o f all the coins o f which i t is com-
posed. These should be described as follows:
(1) A V G V S T V S D I V . F. COS. V I I . I M P . C.3 R F V . (or V F . ) laureate
head o f Augustus to right; corn-ear—DIVOS I V L I V S , C. CASSIVS C. F.
H V I R C. I . C. F. C. Diademed head o f Julius to right ( P i . V I I I , 15).*
(2) I M P . CAESAR. D I V I F. A V G V S T O COS. V I I . bare head o f Augustus to
6
r i g h t — A G R I P P A COS. I I I . , IMP.5 C. D I . F. S. C. C. R., C. CASSIVS C. F.
H V I R C. I . C. F. C. bare head o f Agrippa to right (Pi. V I I I , 16).?
(3) A P . P V L C H E R P R O COS.headofAp.ClaudiusPulchertoright—C. CASSIVS
C. F. H V I R F. C , A V G . D I . F. S. C. C. R. w o l f and twins (Pi. V I I I , 14).*
8

In these three rare coins is a mine of colonial history and procedure. I t is first necessary
10
to obtain a correct geographical attribution. E. Babelon assigns them to Sinope: not
only, however, are they, i n style, type, and arrangement, completely alien to the
homogeneous series o f that c i t y , " but there is no C among its cognomina
(p. 253). Ascriptions to Carthage and Corinth by Groag and de Saulcy respectively
12 13

14
are totally out o f harmony w i t h style and fabric. Klebs, too, is wrong i n attempting
to locate a non-existent colony w i t h the style C. I . C. F. C. or G . : F. C. is an extremely
common formula for ¥(aciundum) C(uravit etc.), being found w i t h this significance on
r
innumerable inscriptions, * and a number o f coins. A m o n g the latter is the following
piece:
(4) A G R I P P A , T . R. Q. (?), C T . C. (?), F. C. head o f Agrippa to right—
A G R I P P A A V G . NEPOS head o f Agrippa Postumus to right (Pi. V I I I , 17). 16

1
As Meyer, Casars Monarchic, p. 492. 8
For this colonial type vide Paoli, Mil. d'arch.
2
Vide Schulze, p. 117—derived from the river etd*hist. LV, 1938, p. 128; cf. Eckhel, DN. iv, p. 492.
Vomanus, ibid. p. 481. 9 Paris: wrongly described by Wad. 196,
3 BM. Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 17, and Rec. 77.
4
BM, Berlin, Paris; a letter omitted by Imhoof- 10
Rec. 77 ff.
Blumer, MG. p. 15; wrongly described in Rec. 80. " A s recognised by von Sallet; cf. PIR. 1, 394.
5
Berlin. 6
BM. 778. 1 2
PIR? 11, 984.
13
7
BM, Berlin, Paris, Munich, Schotten; wrongly Mimoires de la Sociitifrancaise de numismatique
described by Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 16; Rec. 78; and et d'archiologie, 1873, P* 9-
2

Boutkowski, DN. 11, p. 1747. 2866. The mis- 14

Ibid. "5 E.g. CIL. vm (index).
quotation is renewed by Miss Newby (p. 41). 16
BM (attributed to Sinope).
256 THE ROMAN COLONIES
I n style—and especially i n portraiture of Agrippa—this bears a very close resemblance
to ( i ) - ( 3 ) above, and the mint must be the same. As on those pieces, F. C. must be
eliminated from the ethnic, which is therefore merely C. I . C. This solution is confirmed
by a further unpublished issue o f equally great rarity, whose portraits, style and types
are closely modelled on (1) and (2), and indicate identity o f mint:
(5) A V G V S T V S I M P . C. I . C. head o f Augustus to right— D I V O S I V L I V S
1
C. I . C. diademed head o f Caesar to right.
The fabric o f all these pieces suggests the north-west regions o f Asia Minor. Thus
the countermarks, ABR.* and PHR., found on specimens o f (1) and (2), are likely to
3

represent the neighbouring districts o f ABR(ettene)—the kingdom o f Cleon under

4
Bithynian Olympus —and PHR(ygia minor). Furthermore, a specimen o f a very
rare coin o f Caligula,* o f similar style and w i t h the same ethnic, was acquired by the
6
writer at the very foot o f Bithynian Olympus. I n the whole o f Asia Minor there were
few colonies, and we know o f only one C(olonia) I . C.: that was precisely i n the region
to which these indications point—less than twenty miles from the mountain, at
Apamea. Here was a colonia IuliaJ whose cognomen, Concordia* points to a foundation
i n c. 42-40 B.C. by Antony (p. 227).
The elucidation o f the formulae o f ( i ) - ( 3 ) presents a number o f difficulties*. The
self-contained clause C. CASSIVS C. F. I I V I R C(oloniae) \{uliae) C(pncordiae)
¥(aciundum) C(uravit) is i n each case clear, but the reverse legends are otherwise o f an
unparalleled character. O n (3), AVG(ustus) D I ( v i ) F(ilius) appears i n an unexpected
position; on (2), IMP(erator) C(aesar) D I ( v i ) F(ilius) is even more curious, since i t
shares a face o f the coin w i t h Agrippa and the duovir, while the title o f the princeps has
already occurred (in identical form except for the addition o f A V G V S T V S ) on the
obverse. This cannot be fortuitous, nor can i t be the ordinary Nominativus Pendens
o f a coin-legend; i t is clear that i n each case the name o f Augustus plays a special part,
probably i n connection with the subsequent unusual formula S. C. C. R. This last is
not adequately explained bylmhoof-Blumer's? S(enatus) C(onsulto) C(ivium) R(pmano-
rum), which is less appropriate to a Roman than to a Latin city. I t is most likely that a
special action o f the princeps is depicted on the reverses o f (2) and (3), and also on the
partially lost obverse o f (1). Finite sentences occur on other colonial issues—at
Cassandrea, Dyrrhachium, Philippi and probably Lystra: i n each case the occasion is
the deductio. Here a first foundation was not i n question, but i n view of the disgrace o f
the Antonian colonies after Actium and the known colonial activity o f Octavian at
that date (p. 305), nothing is more probable than a refoundation. Moreover, the agency
6
1
Berlin ('uncertain'). At Bursa (Brusa).
2
On (1); Paris. See Monogram 10. 7 Pliny, NH. v, 149; cf. Strabo xn, 563; Pliny,
3
On (1) and (2); Paris. See Monogram 11. Ep. x, 56; Ulp. Dig. L, 15. 1; CIL. in, 335; ibid.
4
Tarn, CAH. x, p. 114. Suppl. 6992.
5 Rec. p. 252. Cf. Kornemann 113.
8
9 MG. l.c
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 257
of the proconsul i n this new establishment would align him w i t h the many others who
are honoured on colonial coins i n a similar capacity. Since the only alternative on such
issues—commemoration o f amici principis—is a later phenomenon (p. 229), i t is
necessary to conclude that A p . Pulcher is concerned w i t h the foundation, like others
who are portrayed at the same date elsewhere (p. 152). The colonial epithet Iulia
would be correct for a colony founded i n the first half o f the governorship o f 28-27 B.C.
( M a y - M a y ) , to which the date COS. V I I . is appropriate (pp. 293 n. 1, 422).
1 2

N o w S. C , which appears on these coins, is much more likely to refer to the Roman
senate than to local bodies, which generally use the formula [ E X ] D . D.3 The follow-
ing letters, C. R., recall that second founders are regularly entitled coloniae restitutores*
—and Augustus appears i n this capacity at Ilici, Parium, Pella, Dyrrhachium and
Philippi. Thus a number of indications combine to restore the legends of (2) as follows:
lMP(eratore) CAESAR(e) D I V I F(ilio) A V G V S T O COS. V I I . A G R I P P A
COS. I I I . , lUP(erator) C(aesar) D I V I F(ilius) S(enatus) C(pnsulto) C(olo-
niam) R(estituit); C. CASSIVS C. F. I I V I R C(oloniae) l(uliae) C(oncordiae)
F(aciundum) C(uravit).
The apparent redundance o f the princeps' titles is due to the formal eponymous
mention o f the names o f both consuls i n the Ablative Absolute. I n the same way (3)
reads: AVG(ustus) D I ( v i ) F(ilius) S(enatus) C(onsulto) C(ploniam) R(estituit). A
similar formula might well be expected to occur on (1): and i t is most probable that the
letters C. R., which follow the hiatus on all our specimens, were preceded b y S. C ,
and that the Imperator title, not being prenominal as on the other coins, bore a
number. The lettering o f (1) may, then, be restored as follows: A V G V S T V S D I V . F.
COS. V I I . IMP. [ V I I . S. C ] C. R. F V . or V F . W i t h regard to the final ligature i t may
be noted, first, that i t must be an inorganic part o f the formula, since this occurs on
(2) and (3) without i t ; secondly, that V F . is a highly unplausible commencement for a
word, so that i t must begin w i t h F V . Some additional explanatory verb like FWQsit) or
FV(ndavit) is indicated (cf. p. 425).
Ap. Claudius Pulcher, who was entrusted w i t h this task o f refoundation, had been
consul i n 38 B . C . , * and had triumphed from Spain i n c. 33-32 B . C . , receiving the title
6

imperatorJ I t is significant of the administrative change in 27 that, on this * programme*

coinage, he bears neither this title nor those earlier applied to colonial founders—such
as praefectus, deductor or conditor—but only shows his constitutional proconsular
office (p. 292). His consular rank is i n accordance w i t h Syme's demonstration that the 8

1
Cf. Cic. Fam. XII, 16. * E.g. CIL. 111, 7282, etc
* The slight postponement of the foundation- 5 Asconius, ap. Cic. Pro MOone, p. 29; cf. PIR.
issue, to 27 (COS. VII.), is quite understandable. 1, 394. 77.
3 E X S. C , as at Carteia and Toletum, is ex- 6
CIL. i , p. 176.
a

tremely rare (cf. Lenormant, La monnaie dans 7 CIL. x, 1423-4.

Vantiquiti, in, p. 215); P. S. S. C. at colonia Paestum 8
RR. p. 393; Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939),
refers to the Roman senate (p. 287). Cf. p. 424. p. 331.
258 THE ROMAN COLONIES
boundary between consular and praetorian provinces was not yet firmly fixed. The
signal honour o f portraiture is Pulcher's due as one o f the first aristocrats to have
1
supported the young Octavian. Elsewhere mention w i l l be made o f Pulcher's pre-
decessor Thorius Flaccus (p. 384). That governor imitates a tetradrachm o f 28 which
2
already announces the restituta res publico,: no doubt the order for the refoundation o f
the colony accompanied the general restoration o f rights (p. 445).
The subsequent coinage o f Apamea under Augustus only comprises (4) and (5).3
Agrippa must have been held i n special honour, since his portrait here appears after his
death, together with that of his posthumous son, whose head appears elsewhere only at
Corinth and Pella (pp. 268, 283); perhaps all three were occasioned by a visit to the
East (p. 363). Tarraco too shows a sporadic output o f coins i n honour o f members
o f the domus principis (p. 219). A t the end o f Augustus's lifetime Apamea is used for
an official issue o f M . Granius Marcellus (p. 145).

14. S Y R I A : Berytus

The colonial history o f this province has been recently enlightened by the demonstra-
4
tion by A . H . M . Jones that Heliopolis was not raised to colonial rank until the time o f
Severus: i n the Augustan period it was part o f the territory o f Berytus. The titles o f
this colony raise a problem to which the following coin is relevant:
C. V I B I . L . P O N T I . I I V I R . C. F. I . bust o f Ceres to right, with corn-ear crown,
veil, ear-rings and necklace.
L . P O N T I . C. V I B I . I I V I R . C. F. I . crescent w i t h spikes indicating radiation;
plough, locust.5
6
The attribution o f this by Froehner to the uniform issues o f Sinope is completely
out o f harmony with its distinctive style and arrangement. Imhoof-BlumerV state-
ment that he 'obtained' (erhielt) the only known specimen 'together with Pontic and
Paphlagonian coins' is worthless as evidence, since i t is unknown what other coins
1
Syme, RR. p. 368. on the coins with wolf and twins recall both
2
BMC. Imp. Aug. 691; cf. Stuart Jones, CAH. Vespasian (BM) and an ideal type of second-century
x, p. 127. Miss Newby (p. 2) ignores the relevance date (Berlin); another, with the type of cornucopiae
of the coin. (BM, Milan, Cat. 251), may be even later. This is an
3
There is also a homogeneous series in honour exceptional case of long-lived honours to the dic-
of Divus Julius: since one coin has C. I. C. (BMC. tator, who planned the Julio-Antonian foundation.
20, Munich) and others (BM, Berlin) the wolf and 4
CERP. p. 465 n. 85; cf. p. 272; pace Sherwin-
twins, which appear also on our number (3), the White, p. 174. Cf. Ulpian, Dig. L , XV, 1. 2; Strabo
rest, inscribed D.D., may be assigned to the same xvi, 276; CIL. in, 14387, do. a and b.
mint. But none of these should be placed at the 5 Berlin; illustrated by Bosch, Archaologischer
beginning of the series (as by Imhoof-Blumer, Anzeiger, Beiblatt 2 Jahrb. XLVI, \*)}\,Abbildung 15,
i

JIAN. 1,1898, p. 11): of the two already mentioned, p. 454.

the former is Domitianic in style, and the portraits 6
Rn. 1907, p. 168. 7 KM. p. 74*
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 259
were i n the same ' l o t ' , and also whether this was the product o f a find or merely o f a
fortuitous collocation. Moreover, the style and execution are alien to the northern
1
region o f Asia Minor. The crescent is essentially a Phoenician type, and the large
letters and oriental fabric are characteristic o f the same region, being found on Augustan
issues o f Berytus (e.g. PL I X , 10). Moreover, the rare clan o f the Pontii actually
2
appears on inscriptions from the site o f that city. The remarkable main reverse type is
either a radiate diadem or a conventional representation o f the sun's disc and rays.
Such an unusual solar type must have some special significance. By the analogy o f
other types parlants (p. 194) i t is natural to think o f the world-famous centre o f the
3
worship o f Baal-Helios, which is shown by Jones to have been within the territory o f
the colony o f Berytus. The crescent is, moreover, an especially common type on coins
4
and sculpture o f Heliopolis, and its radiate form was the especial prerogative o f
Helios.5 i f this attribution is accepted, the coin cannot be pre-Augustan, since Helio-
polis was regal property until c. 20B.C.; thus i t lends no support to the view o f
6

7
Ritterling that the epithets Iulia Augusta at Berytus indicate an earlier Julian founda-
tion. I f there was such a foundation, i t was cancelled by Cleopatra, since there are
Greek local issues o f the city w i t h her head (and others are dated to 28-27 B.C.9).
8

Furthermore, coins later i n the principate o f Augustus, whose style, provenance and
type demand attribution here, still have only C O L . I V L . (p. 260), and the epithet
10
Augusta does not appear until after his death. This necessitates the conclusion that,
whether there had been a Julian plan or not, the colony founded i n c. 16-15 o
4~ r l

13 B.C." exceptionally bore as its own the epithet Iulia: even i f the theory o f an early
Julian foundation were acceptable, late Augustan coins could hardly have neglected the
epithet Augusta, had i t ever been assumed, i n favour o f Iulia. Only one explanation
appears to be possible. I t has been suggested by coins o f municipium Gades, on which
Agrippa is parens patronus (p. 171), that Augustus sometimes permitted his distin-
guished relatives to play a considerable part in foundations. I t was again Agrippa who,
during his governorship o f the East, was responsible for the foundation o f Berytus:
the epithet seems to indicate that the titular founder—who must have been a Julius,
but cannot have been Augustus—was one o f Agrippa's sons who had recently been
12 13
adopted by the princeps, probably the eldest, Caius Caesar. This view is given

Cf. Ronzevalle, Melanges de VUniversiti S.

1 7
PW. xn, 1215; cf. Kornemann 115; Pliny,
Joseph, xviii, 1934, pp. 109 f., pis. II, III. NH. v, 78.
CIL. in, 157.
2 8
Athens; Svoronos, Ptolemies, 1886.
Beer, PW. vm, 47; Ronzevalle, l.c. xxi,
3
9. BMC. 16.
I
937-8, pp. 129 ff. 1 0
BMC. 57, etc.
Ronzevalle, l.c. xvm, 1934, pp. 127
4
ff. 1 1
Anderson, CAH. x, p. 281 n. 3, gives biblio-
Stephani, Mdmoires de VAcadimie des sciences graphy.
5

de S. Pitersbourg, vie sdtn^ sc.-pol.-hist.-phU. cl, ix, Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 151.
1 2

59> P« 3 7-
l8 8 1 3
Cf. other patrocinia of Caius, e.g. CIL. 11,
Jones, CERP. p. 271; cf. Head, HN. pp. 783f. 1525 f., and Lucius, ibid. 3914, etc.
6
i6o THE ROMAN COLONIES
plausibility b y Augustus's dedication o f other new foundations, such as the Basilica
1
Iulia, sub titulo nominis Jiliorum; and colonia Iulia Obsequens Pisae, whose patronus
2
was Lucius Caesar, may well be i n the same category. The analogy o f many isolated
issues elsewhere confirms the probability that the coinage o f Vibius and Pontius com-
memorated this deductio.
Not much later is a little piece, imitated from the official series w i t h C A which circu-
lated here (p. 106), w i t h C A I S A R and C O L . I V L . i n wreath (Pi. I X , 9).* Later i n the
reign are found issues bearing the same ethnic but CAESAR A V G V S T V S , and a
type o f colonist ploughing (Pi. I X , 10) : the portrait is imitated from an official issue
4

at Sidon b y Q. Articuleius (?) Regulus (p. 125). The last coinage before Augustus's
death is inscribed PERM(issu) SIL(ani): Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus governed
from c. A . D . 12 to 15,5 and issued official coins at the same mint (p. 127). The distinction
between the present formula and P(ermissu) A V G . , which appears on his official
pieces, is a natural one: small local issues could be left to the governors' discretion, but
official coinages were co-ordinated by a central department. The colonial pieces w i t h
P E R M . S I L . have the heads o f Augustus and Tiberius, described respectively as
6
I M P . A V G . and T I . C A E S A R A V G V S T . F. I M P E R A T . [VII?].7 They are shown to
be o f this mint by the style, and b y the characteristic Berytan type o f two eagles and
two standards. This is the only colonial mint which records the permission o f a
legatus Augusti; the only contemporary parallel o f any kind is provided by a single
coinage sanctioned by a proconsul o f Africa (p. 232). Since cities i n the praetorian
'senatorial' provinces o f Baetica and Achaia display instead the formula Permissu
Augusti (p. 174), i t must be concluded that no differentiation i n this respect existed
between the two types o f province, but that greater latitude was extended to important
consulares than to those o f lesser dignitas.

15. C Y R E N A I C A E T C R E T A : Cyrene, Cnossus

The fleeting existence o f a colony i n Cyrenaica, at a time when this was temporarily
separated from Crete, is revealed by an unpublished and apparently unique coin:

Head o f goddess to right—P. C O S C O N . silphium-plant, w i t h leaves and roots

8
(Pi. I X , 6).

The reverse type alludes beyond all doubt to Cyrene, on whose coinage i t regularly

1
RG. 20; cf. rtolbe, GGA. 1939, p . 166. (Bucharest) with many coins of Sidon and
* CIL. xi, 1420-1; cf. Pais, Memorie della R Ac. Aradus.
dei Lincei (sc.-mor.\ VI, 2, 1926, p. 393. 5 PJR.% n , 10. 64.
3 Not CAESAR, pace Rouvier, JIAN. m, 1900, Rouvier, L c 495.
6

no. 488; Berlin, BM. 7 Ibid. 504; BMC. 67.

4
Rouvier, Lc. 491; BMC. 68. Seen in trade 8
Paris ('uncertain').
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 261
1 3
and exclusively appears, sometimes without umbels as here. This attribution is
confirmed by African stylistic traits.
The date o f this piece is indicated by striking similarities o f type to the foundation-
issue o f Cassius's ephemeral colony at Rhodes (p. 243). The heads differ i n style but
their design is virtually the same: on both coins appears the appropriate city-badge,
accompanied by a Latin signature without qualifying titles. Moreover, the two pieces
are of identical weight and dimensions: it seems impossible to dissociate them. Indeed,
the early months o f the year 42, to which the Rhodian deductio and coinage must be
3
attributed, provide a highly suitable occasion for a similar issue at Cyrene. Brutus's
governor i n Crete, P. Lepidus, shares an official series w i t h P. Licinius, pro quaestore
of Cyrenaica (p. 35): Lepidus established himself i n Crete i n 43-42, and P. Licinius
apparently occupied Cyrenaica a few months later. Thus at Cyrene, as at Rhodes, the
signatory o f the coinage is not the governor. A t the latter city, C. Car. and C. Cos.
were the deductor and adsignator respectively o f a garrison-colony established by the
Republicans, like Tadius and Marius (likewise bearing no titles) at Melita (p. 235).
P. Cosconius at Cyrene must fulfil a similar function. Indeed, i t is the exception rather
than the rule that both founders should be mentioned: far more frequently only the
deductor is recorded.
Brutus and Cassius founded several colonies i n Macedonia (p. 272), and i t is now
becoming possible to assess their activity as founders i n other parts o f their short-
lived empire. Melita, Rhodes and Cyrene were all at strategic points i n the Mediter-
ranean; their unrecognised coinage reveals deductiones o f veterans who possessed the
rights o f a Roman community, but were scarcely distinguishable from a garrison.
Many o f Augustus's settlements were o f similar character (p. 306).
P. Cosconius was perhaps a brother o f C. Cos., who assisted C. Car. i n the contem-
4
porary foundation at Rhodes. The Cosconii were a distinguished family whose evident
Republicanism did not prevent them from providing the mother o f Sejanus.5
I n Crete there is a rather insignificant though extensive coinage at Cnossus, which
became colonia Iulia Nobilis, under the patrocinium o f Capua, i n c. 36 B.C.? M . 6

Licinius Crassus appears to have issued an official coinage to celebrate its foundation
1
Cf. Robinson, BMC. Cyrenaica, pp. ccliff.; D i o X L i x , 14. This unusual liaison persisted: cf.
6

Intermidiaire des chercheurs et des curieux, 1936, CIL. x, 3938; Paribeni, Dqionario epigrafico, 11, 2.
PP. 832 f. 1265.
* E.g. Robinson, l.c. pi. X X I I , 16 (Paris), ? Dio x u x , 12.4; Strabo x,478; Appian, v,
XLII, 11 (Glasgow)—the latter of c. 36 B . C , 131; cf. Levi 11, p. 86 n. 5. Romanelli, CAH. x i ,
P' 57« p. 661, has no grounds for placing the foundation
3
The silphium trade was still flourishing at this later—especially as the province is omitted from
date, though it soon died in the principate: cf. Jones, Augustus's list in RG. 28: cf. Mommsen, RGDA?
CERP, p. 363. p 120—nor Kornemann for ignoring it altogether.
#
4
P. Cosconius Chius (CIL. vi, 4742) may Pliny's omission of it is entirely in accordance with
possibly have been his freedman. the imperfection of his sources for pre-Augustan
5
Velleius 11, 127. 3; PIR.* 11, 376. 1528. colonies (p. 226).
262 THE ROMAN COLONIES
(p. 55): he was Antony's representative i n Crete and Cyrenaica at this time, when the
whole o f the latter, and all but Cnossus i n the former, were nominally i n Cleopatra's
possession (p. 58). The local mint soon reopens to produce a few unsigned pieces —
1 2

3 4
including one w i t h the name of Augustus and another w i t h his head —and a duoviral
series i n which eleven colleges are represented before the death o f the princeps:
(1) M . Aimilius (sic) T . Fufius IlvirS (or i n Ablative ) ( C . I . N . C. E X D . D.,7
6

C. N . C. E X D . D . ) (PL I X , 7).
8

(2) C. Petronios M . Antonios (sic) Ilvirf (or i n Ablative) ( C . I . N . C N . E X

D. D.).
(3) [ C . Iulio] Aeschino Cues. L . [Hvir.] iter., L . Plotio Pleb. Hvir. (C. N . I . G N O [ S ] .
10
EX D . D. ).
(4) M . Acu. D . Acu. Tarn. (??) Hvir. ( C . I . N . C.). 11

(5) uncertain Ilviri ( C . I . N . C.) (Pi. I X , 8 ) . 12

13
£6) M . Petronio C. Iulio Antonio Hvir. ( C . I . N . C . ) .
(7) Pollione iter. Labeone [Hvir. *] ( D . D . ) .
14 1

(8) Labeone Pollione Hvir. q. iter. 16

(9) fa, Aemilio Labeone, T i . Caesare Hv. (A A, 7 or o m i t t e d ) .

x l8

(10) [Augujstus, iter. ** 1

(11) M . Aemili. praef. Hvir. iter. ( D . D . ) (PL V I I I , 18). 20

Several somewhat unimportant points o f colonial procedure are involved. (1) appears
to have been struck soon after the deductio, and apparently has the heads o f the two
21
masters o f the w o r l d , who had ceased to appear together on official coinage at an
earlier date. A labyrinth appears i n the field, as on (2). M . Aemilius belongs to a domi-
nant Cnossian family, and his colleague recalls the names, probably contemporary, o f
a T . Fufius at V e i i and a T . Fufius T . 1. Hermocrates at Rome. (3), with the name and
22 23

1
Dio's statement (XLIX, 32. 5) that she only re- Vienna. Probably two members of the gens Acutia
ceived part of the island (p. 55) is in accordance (Schulze, p. 68; Groag, SB. ix, 1939, p. 46) or
with the fact that colonies could not be founded on Acutilia (Schulze, l.c. p. 403). A Tamudi(? anus)
peregrine soil. was a Republican banker (cf. Herzog, PW. xvn,
2
Svoronos, Crete, 184-7. 1426), and an Acuti(? us) also had banking interests
3 Ibid. 185 (Athens). at some date (ibid. 1434).
4
Ibid. 184 (BMC 77). 5 Svoronos 180. " BM.
6
BMC 72. 7 Ll.cc. 1 3
Svoronos 192; cf. Borrell, Rn. 1845, p. 340. 5.
* Svoronos 183, Vienna. 1 4
Svoronos 201.
9 Svoronos 188 f.; BMC. 74; Milan, Cat. 426, *5 BM; attributed to Corinth, BMC. 513.
Vienna. Miss Newby supports her citation of a 1 6
Svoronos 199, Athens.
non-existent Greek coin (p. 78) by showing a XParis, Vienna. ^ P a r i s (AIMILIO).
photograph of this. Paris ('uncertain'). ^Berlin.
1 0
Svoronos 190 f.; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, MG. 2 1
For Octavian, cf. BMCR. pi. CXm, 15, etc
p. 214. 10; Friedlander, ZfN. vi, 1879, p. 13; Robinson, BMC. Cyrenaica, p. ccix n. 2, thinks that
Milan, Cat. 429. the other .head represents Agrippa.
" Svoronos 193 f.; cf. Friedlander, I.e.; Berlin, 2 2
CIL. xi, 3828. CIL. vi, 7208.
2 3
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 263
figure of R O M A , is struck by a college one o f whose members, Aeschinus, is a freed-
1
man o f the princeps; his appearance contrasts w i t h the later election o f Tiberius to the
same office. The inscriptions o f (4) and (5), which—like (6)—have the heads o f Caius
and Lucius, are invariably blundered and cannot be certainly restored; but their
differentiation seems probable. The magistrates o f (6) are curiously comparable to
those o f (2); they are to be assigned to this mint owing to their resemblance to (4),
2
whose attribution is based on style and ethnic. The double gentile name o f C. Julius
Antonius confirms the supposition that Julio-Antonian colonies bore both epithets
(p. 180). Earle F o x is responsible for the convincing attribution o f (7), which is
3 4

supported by finds o f (8):* the former o f these reinforces the demonstration by

Simitthu (?) (p. 232) and Carteia that changes o f colonial formula may well occur at the
6

same mint, unaccompanied by any administrative change. The long and otherwise
unknown career o f M . Aemilius Labeo is noteworthy. He was at least once duovir—
like another M . Aemilius before him—and at least twice quinquennalis: (8) is the only
Cnossian issue (with the possible exception o f [10]) to be signed by holders o f the
latter office, and may, like similar issues at coloniae Dyrrhachium and Patrae (?) and
civitas libera Leptis Magna (pp. 275, 265, 340), celebrate the quarter-centenary o f the
foundation. The head o f Tiberius appears not only on (9) but also on (10) and (11):
the magistrate, whose second tenure is recorded on these two coins but whose name
has not survived, is therefore probably T i . Caesar Hvir iterum. O n the obverses also
of ( 9 ) - ( n ) the portraits are the same: the legend o f (10) indicates that Augustus is
represented. Indeed, the relegation o f Tiberius to the second place is inexplicable
except on the supposition that Labeo, whose name precedes his, was the praefectus
deputising for the princeps. This conclusion is confirmed by the interchangeability o f
the names o f Augustus and Labeo on otherwise similar obverses. Thus ( 9 ) - ( n )
represent two tenures o f the duovirate by Augustus and Tiberius. As a general rule
the princeps held honorary magistracies without a colleague: but a Saguntine issue has
shown that he accepted Agrippa i n that capacity (p. 159), and the powers o f Tiberius
in the last years before his accession were more extensive than those o f the earlier 'co-
regent* (p. 430). Tiberius owes his several appearances on these issues to a patrocinium
of the city.7
1
Possibly he was the son or kinsman of an C. Julius Calpurnius (Ramsay, Anatolian Studies to
Aeschinus who was prominent in Roman banking Buckler [1939], p. 210).
concerns in 69 BX. (Herzog, PW. XVII, 1425; cf. 4
JIAN. 11, 1899, p\ 90. 5 Athens mus.
Babelon, Arithuse, XVIII, 1928, p. 21). See p. 322. 6
Delgado 1, p. 92; Vives iv, p. 26.
* Borrell, Rn. 1845, P* 34°* 6, quotes an un- 7
For other/>a/roc/n/a of Tiberius under Augustus,
plausible variety. cf. Eph. Epigr. m, 53 and, according to Hubner,
3
For a similar double gentilicium at this time cf. CIL. 11, 1113.
264 THE ROMAN COLONIES

16. M A C E D O N I A E T A C H A I A

(a) A C H A I A : Dyme, Patrae, Corinth

Three early coins can be assigned to a mint i n the southern section o f the province,
united until 27 B . C . , o f Macedonia-Achaia (p. 67 n. 10):

(1) C. I . D . , C. I V L . T A N G . C. A R R I . A . F. laureate head o f Julius to right—

1
I I V I R . Q V I N Q . E X D . D . Plough.
(2) same inscription. Head o f Minerva i n helmet to right—same inscription.
2
Fasces and subsellium.
(3) C N . O C T A . M . A N T . A R I S T A same head o f Minerva—C. I . A .
D V M . i n wreath.3

The last has the name of Dyme; its similarity to (2) makes i t inevitable that both colleges
are o f the same city, and that attributions to Dertosa and Parium 5 are wrong. I m -
4

6
hoof-Blumer also notes a bevelled edge and peculiar fabric found on contemporary
coins o f the Achaian region; the neighbouring mint o f Corinth, whose Antonian
issues exhibit similar features (p. 267), confirms the attribution.
I n connection w i t h Lampsacus and Alexandria Troas (p. 245) i t has been pointed
out that heads o f Julius, especially those—like the present one—which are imitated
from denarii o f Sepullius Macer, are likely to date from the first years o f Antony's
government; this view is supported by Kornemann, who fixes 44 as the upper
7

limit for the foundation o f Dyme. Furthermore, the gentile name o f M . Antonius
Arista(? rchus) indicates that at least one o f the citizens was enfranchised by the trium-
8
v i r s ; Cn. Octavius may equally have been a libertus o f Octavian, but perhaps was an
older man, a bore o f that name w h o m Cicero avoided.* The coin signed by these t w o
is shown to be early by its close stylistic resemblance to (2), which could scarcely be
later than the forties. The ethnic o f (3) cannot therefore represent C(plonia) \{idid)
A(ugusta). By the analogy o f a number o f coloniae Antoniae and municipia Antonia
which existed until Octavian changed their epithet to Iulia (pp. 180, 302), the ethnic o f
Dyme on this piece may be interpreted as C(plonia) l(ulia) A(ntonia). I t cannot, how-
ever, be determined whether Caesar, Q. Hortensius, or Antony was responsible for the
foundation. The change from C . I . D . to C . I . A . D . suggests that Antony'refounded'
1
Berlin; Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 165. 42. groundless. Cf. p. 232 for similar changes of formula
2
Berlin; ibid. 43. at single mints.
3 Paris; ibid. 44 (part not read). 7
107. See also p. 4.
4
Hiibner, MLL p. 38. 8
Such arguments must, however, be treated with
5 de Saulcy, Mimoires de la Sociiti francaise de caution: e.g. Balbus, who was enfranchised by
numismatique et d*archiologie, 1873, p. 29. Pompey, took the name of Cornelius—cf. Syme,
6
Ibid. But his argument based on a distinction Actes du Ve Congres de Papyrologie, 1937, pp. 466f.
between D . D . (at Dium) and E X D . D . (here) is * C i c Fam. vii, 16. 2.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 265
an already existing (or planned) settlement o f Julius by adding a draft o f citizens. He
had already accepted the principle o f the refoundation o f colonies, i n the face o f
1
legalist protests from Cicero; the practice later became common. I n this case both
coinages are probably foundation-issues.
There are two very rare issues with a portrait o f Augustus, and types respectively o f
Victory on a prow,* and a prow alone (Pi. I X , 1 i)J O n both the ethnic is C. I . A . D . :
since k{ntonia) is no longer possible, this indicates a third foundation, with the epithet
A(ugusta), at a date when Achaia was already a separateprovincia. For no good reason
4
Kornemann rejects an explicit statement by Pausanias about D y m e : AuyouaTOS 8e
Ocmpov Trpoaeveiuev carrfiv ncrrpeOcnv.5 N o t every colony could be successful, and
it was remarkable that so many survived; but Dyme (like Pella, Heraclea Pontica,
and Lampsacus) was not one o f them, and i t is Patrae, colonised i n c. 16 B.C. as colonia
6 7
Aroe Augusta, which henceforward coins. This colony was given a better chance b y
8
a synoecism o f southern Aetolia to increase its population. There is only one certain
Augustan issue, after 2 B.C.:*
P A T E R bare head to right o f Augustus.
10
P A T R I A E , C. A . A . P. colonist and priest ploughing.
Here exceptionally all other titles are excluded i n favour o f the climactic honour o f
pater patriae. This emphasises the aspect o f the princeps as universal conditor (p. 318),
and thus has a special relevance to the lengthening category o f isolated coinages
explicitly commemorating the possession o f civitas. I n view o f its late date, this piece
does not celebrate the foundation itself, but probably, like others at Dyrrhachium,
Leptis Magna, and perhaps Cnossus, its quarter-centenary (pp. 263, 295).
W i t h the exception o f Buthrotum, Corinth is the only Eastern colony with an
extensive coinage whose issues have been, on the whole, satisfactorily defined and
arranged. Earle F o x " first expelled a large number o f misread and misattributed
duoviral colleges, so that numismatists had to look elsewhere for a colonial clearing-
12 13
house; later Miss Edwards completed and revised his list from material found i n
1
He recounts (// Phil. 102) that Antony asked Kornemann 248; Dorsch, l.c. pp. 25 f.;
6

him whether such a refoundation would be correct, Ritterling, PW. xn, 1226 and 1241, are contra-
and complains that, when he replied that a new dictory.
deductio would not be, but that a new draft could— Coins of Tiberius attributed here belong to
7

to avoid the difficulty—be called an ascriptio, Dyrrhachium (p. 278).

Antony ignored this clever advice and proceeded Cf. Jones, GC. p. 65.
8

with a complete military deductio at the old site of Litde coins of uninformative type (e.g. Paris)
9

Casilinum! look post-Augustan.

* Athens; Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 165. 45. BMC. 18, Paris, Hollschek coll. Wrongly
1 0

3
BM, Berlin, Athens; ibid. 46. described by M. iv, 136. 916, etc
4
107. Haling Rom und Romanismus, p. 93, JIAN. 11, 1899, pp. 98 ff.
1 1

actually speaks of an enlargement of Dyme. " They chose coloniae Panormus and Carthago
5
> *7; cf. Dorsch, De civitatis romance apud Nova (pp. 194, 217).
VII

Graecos propagation, Diss. Breslau, 1886, p. 19. Corinth, vi (Coins).

1 3
266 THE ROMAN COLONIES
excavation on the site. T w o neglected pieces, however, without the signature o f
magistrates, are relevant to the foundation o f the colony:

(1) C R E A T O R vase—CORIN. i n wreath. 1

(2) CAESAR bare head o f Julius to r i g h t — [ C ] O R . statue i n hexastyle temple;

amphora (Pi. V I I I , 19). 2

The former, whether contemporary or (as at Babba [p. 222]) later than the deductio,
adds to the terminology of colonial foundation. The poetic phrase suggests the paternal
relationship, by an extension o f which the founder and patronus is compared w i t h the
pater himself (p. 319). The type o f the unpublished second coin is based on a denarius
of c. 50 B.C., but lacks the features which give that a special significance; the temple
3

cannot be identified, but is not that o f Vesta (as on the prototype) since i t contains a
4
statue. The elderly features are skilfully and originally executed; the name C A E S A R
suggests that the coin was issued before his deification i n January 42, and therefore
before the regime o f Brutus. The foundation o f a commercial colony at Corinth was
one o f the most important o f the dictator's plans,* but opinion has differed hitherto as
to whether i t was undertaken before his death. This coin appears to answer the question
6
in the affirmative: i t is quite distinct i n style from the group o f posthumous colonial
issues w i t h laureate portraits o f Julius imitated from denarii.
O f those, indeed, an example occurs on another coin o f Corinth, signed by the
7
duoviri L . Certus Aeficius and L . Julius. Julii often occur at Antonian foundations
from a Julian plan, and the portraiture, whose analogies we have seen (p. 264), demands
attribution to the government o f Antony. Its early date within this period is indicated
by the exceptionally full ethnic L A V S I V L I C O R I N T (p. 226). Alterations i n Miss
Edwards's chronology seem to be necessary. She assigns only three duoviral colleges,
besides L . Certus Aeficius and L . Julius, to a date earlier than Actium—P. Tadius
Chilo and C. Julius Nicephorus ( P i . I X , 12) (with C O R I N T H V M an Accusative
8

ethnic as at Thapsus [p. 225]), Insteius (on some specimens HINST.9) and L . Cassius, 10

11
P. Aebutius and L . Pinnius. But the unique piece o f the uncertain college [ N O ] V I O (?)
A- closely resembles, i n style and portraiture o f the dictator, the issues o f L .
Aeficius and L . Julius, and must be ascribed to a date scarcely less early. Also not
later than Actium are issues o f a sixth college, Q. Caecilius Niger and C. Heius
13
Pamphilus, w i t h the same early fabric and type, and a head o f Aphrodite w i t h the
coiffure o f the thirties. Again, the coins o f P. Aebutius, as quinquennalis w i t h M .
1
BMC. 690. 2
Vienna. 6
Cf. Dorsch, De civitatis romanae.. .propaga-
3 BMCR. 1, 3871. none, p. 20; pace Lenschau, PW. Suppl. iv, 1033.
4
Cf., for the absence of this at the Temple of Edwards, I.e., p. 6. 1.
7

Vesta, Plattner-Ashby, Topographical Dictionary of Ibid. 2.

8
9 BMC. 526.
Ancient Rome, p. 557; Ovid, Fasti, vi, 295 ff. Edwards, l.c. 3.
1 0 1 1
Ibid. 4.
5 Adcock, CAH. ix, pp. 707 f.; cf. Larsen, ES. 12
Paris; cf. Earle Fox, L c p. 101.
iv, p. 446. X
3 Edwards, l.c. 6.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 267
1
Antonius Theophilus, cannot be much later than his issue w i t h L . Pinnius, which
bears the head o f Antony. There is no reason to postpone their year o f office to c. 24
or even as late as c. 29, since quinquennales already functioned during the triumvirate,
and the piece is o f early appearance. Nowhere else during the triumvirate do as many
as seven colleges coin. The abundance o f money shows how the colony flourished,
since here aes currency was issued not at regular intervals, or only for commemorative
occasions, but to need (p. 296). 2

The names o f some o f the magistrates are interesting. M . Antonius Theophilus was
3
Antony's procurator i n this region, and a certain rascally Insteius from Pisaurum was
4
another o f his satellites whose freedmen occur not only here but at Mytilene* and
6
perhaps Attaleia. Later, i n the same way, we find henchmen o f Augustus represented
at Saguntum and Cnossus (pp. 163, 263). C. Julius Nicephorus, like Theophilus, was
a Greek who had profited by his association w i t h the Caesarian party; i t is clear that
steps were taken to control the policy o f important Roman cities (p. 314). The Pinnii,
too, were a family—probably o f Pannonian origin?—whose great riches and business
8
interests i n the East must have made them useful to the triumvir. The importance o f
wealth in candidates for quinquennalian office at this commercial city (as, to a lesser
degree, at all Roman communities9) is further shown by the position o f the Heii too, o f
10 11
whom others are found at Sparta among the foremost plutocrats. Moreover, M .
12 13
Antonius Theophilus was the father o f a notorious profiteer, and L . Aeficius Certus
is likely to be o f the same familia as the contemporary M . Aeficius M . f. Apollonius at
14
Cnidus —both wereprobably connected with the millionaire knight Aeficius Calvinus.^
16
The No v i i too had large financial interests near by at Delos during the Republic; and
a Chilo represented the banking-house o f the Murrii i n the fifties B . C . Q. Caecilius 1 7

18
Niger recalls Verres's quaestor o f the same names, who was probably a Sicilian and

1
Edwards, l.c. 5, rightly reattributes from Pella; 1 0
Cf. Box, JRS. xxn, 1932, p. 173.
pace Imhoof-Blumer, MG. pp. 88 f., 107A; Gaebler, Cf. Munzer, PW. vn, 2646. Not in Schulze.
1 1

ZfN. XXXVI, 1926, p. 124. 1 2

Pliny, NH. xxxv, 200. I owe this reference to
2
Cf. Edwards, l.c. p. 4. R. Syme.
3
Strabo xvn, 840; cf. Magie, De vocabulis 1 3
His cognomen and nomen are transposed on the
sollemnibus, etc., 11, p. 112. coin in accordance with a custom first observed in
4
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 132. Cicero's letters (e.g. Fam. vi, 12. 2): cf. Schulze,
5
IG. XII, 361; cf. Hatzfeld, p. 95—Isteius l.c. p. 491.
(sic). 1 4
Le Bas, Voyage archtologique, m, 1572; cf.
6
BCH. xiv, 1890, p. 621. 20, restored by Hatz- Hatzfeld, p. 117.
feld, p. 140 n. 6, as Steius. x
5 Suet. De viris illustribus (de claris grammaticis
7
Schulze, p. 31 n. 4; cf. CIL. m, 9275. For et rhetoribus\ 3; cf. von Rohden, PW. 1, 475.
other Illyrian financiers—Genthius, Bato—-vide 1 6
Cf. Hatzfeld, BCH. xxxvi, 1912, p. 55;
Herzog, PW. xvn, 1441. Herzog, PW. xvii, 1439.
8
Cic. Fam. XIII, 61; cf. Frank, ES. 1, p. 388; 1 7
CIL. I , 924; cf. Herzog, l.c. 1426.
2

Carettoni, Civilti Romana, 111, 1938, p. 15. 1 8

Cf. Syme, Papers of the British School at Rome,
9
Cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 173. xiv, 1938, p. 14 n. 68.
268 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
was suspected o f Judaism. I n this company o f financiers and adventurers appears a
2
cliens o f an ancient family w i t h a patrician branch, the Aebutii. The whole group
provides a curious illustration o f the new society which was riding on the crest o f the
Revolution, and o f the ruling classes i n this great Eastern colony.
The principate o f Augustus, and establishment o f a separate proconsul i n Achaia,
did not interrupt the coinage o f Corinth. There remain issues o f four pairs o f duovirif
6
one pair o f praefecti* and two o f quinquennales-^ each college has a distinctive type.
Their names bear witness to the unchanged persistence o f the Caesarian faction dating
from Antony's regime-, authority was still concentrated i n the hands o f a few families.'
Theophilus's son Hipparchus—a civil war profiteer (p. 267)—made his peace w i t h the
new princeps* and coins as duovir on two separate occasions, retaining his names M .
Antonius ;-the frequent survival o f this combination shows how soon its prohibition
was forgotten.? The hereditary character o f office is likewise shown by the election o f
10
C. Julius Hera., who is probably Heraclanus the relative o f Eurycles: we find also a
second P. Aebutius and a second C. Heius Pamphilus, the type and style o f whose
11
coins distinguish them from their earlier relatives —Aebutius also adds SP(urii) F. He
and C. Heius Pamphilus jun. coin aspraefecti, PRF. I T E R . , " with a style late enough to
13
suggest that the elder grandsons o f Augustus were the duoviri whom they represent.
The head o f the third grandson Agrippa Postumus (Pi. I X , 14), who is similarly 14

honoured by two other colonies (pp. 255, 283), appears on a coin o f a third Heius
(C. Pollio) and o f C. Mussius—not Mussidius *5—Priscus. The Mussii were a family
16
with extensive Balkan business-connections dating back for a century; they occur a
17
litde later at Miletus. The same college commemorates Augustus, Tiberius, and—
significantly i n this principate—Germanicus (Pi. I X , 16) and Drtisus jun. (Pi. I X ,
15). This colony—like Caesaraugusta, which already i n c. A . D . 4 elected Tiberius to
the duovirate (p. 218)—did not miss any opportunity to improve its position for the
future. Since the coin i n honour o f Agrippa Postumus is rarest, the college may well

1
Cic. Div. in Caec. 4; Plut. Cic. 7. 3; cf. Munzer, 1 1
Cf. Earle Fox, l.c. p. 95. For this family vide
PW. in, 1231. 2
Cf. Kiebs, PW. 1, 442. Box, JRS. xxii, 1932, p. 173.
3
C. Servilius C. f. Primus, M. Antonius Hipp- 1 2
Edwards, I.e.;pace Earle Fox, l.c. p. 93.
archus; M. Novius Bassus, M. Antonius Hipp- 1 3
A small coin, without magistrates' names (BM,
archus; C. Heius Pollio, C. Heius Pamphilus; Milan Cat. 339), bears the heads of two young
C. Heius Pollio, C. Mussius Priscus (Edwards, l.c. princes who are unidentifiable (pi. I X , 13): Laffranchi
p. 6). {Milan Cat. p. 34 n.) considers them to be Nero and
P. Aebutius Sp. f., C. Heius Pamphilus Prf.
4
Drusus, the brothers of Caligula.
iter. (ibid. p. 5). 1 4
Shown, enlarged, by Pietrangeli, Civilta
5 Cn. Publicius Regulus, M. Antonius Ores%s; Romana, vn, 1938, p. 21.
P. Aebutius Sp. f., C. Julius Hera(clanus) quin. iter. x
5 Edwards, l.c. p. 6.13. The correction is ignored
(ibid. p. 6). 6
Cf. Edwards, l.c. by Miss Newby (p. 77).
Cf. at the peregrine cities—Jones, GC. pp. 170 ff.
7 1 6
E.g. CIL. in, 609 (Dyrrhachium); 'Adnva, X I ,
Plut. Ant. 73. 2.
8
p. 271. 2 (Chalcis).
9 Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 112. 17
Revue des itudes grecques, vi, 1893, pp. I79> > l 8 l

1 0
West, AJA. xxx, 1926, p. 391. 188, 193; cf. Hatzfeld, p. 161.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 269
1
be dated to the year o f his disgrace. A number o f anonymous issues, w i t h athletic
2
types, may or may not have been current; local bronze tesserae were also issued, with
3
D . D . showing their official origin. The bulk o f the coinage as a whole well illustrates
the enormous commercial importance and success o f this colony, which was not only
4
planned but apparently founded i n the dictator's own lifetime.

(b) M A C E D O N I A — E P I R U S . Buthrotum, Cassandrea, D i u m , Philippi, D y r r h -

achium, Pella.
Owing to the ambiguity o f a passage from Strabo,* it is uncertain whether Epirus
was attached i n the Augustan period to Macedonia or Achaia; its southern region
6
probably formed part o f the latter province, but no conclusion can be reached about
the north, i n which lay Buthrotum (as also Dyrrhachium, p. 275). A t all events this
city belonged, i n the earlier part o f our period, to the combined proconsulship o f
Macedonia-Achaia. Its issues, like those o f Cnossus, are perhaps o f less general
historical interest than the issues o f Asia Minor and Macedonia; however, they raise
a number o f points connected w i t h colonial procedure. The colleges o f magistrates
fall approximately into the following order:
(1) 7 et Sura [Ilvir?] iter.
(2) 9 10
T . Pomponius, A . Cocceius Hviri ter.
(3)11
P. Dastidius, L . Cornelius Ilvir. Q. A. ( P i . V I I I , 20).
12

(4)1 3 14
P. Pomponius Graecinus [Milesius ], M . Pullienus * Ilvir. quin. 1

(5)1 6 1
Q. Naevius Sura, A . Hirtuleius ? Ilvir. B.
(6)1 8
Graecinus III [et Sura] quin.
1
Cf. Edwards, l.c. 2
Ibid. p. 7. xvn, 840; cf. Mommsen, Provinces of the
5

3
Ibid. p. 9. Many other cities issued these tokens, Roman Empire, 1, p. 256 n. 1.
which are not considered relevant to the present Keil, CAH. xi, p. 557; butcf. p. 565; cf. Larsen,
6

study, though their exact purpose is usually obscure: ES. iv, p. 437.
cf. Rostovtzeff, Svintsoveya Tessere, etc. Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 138. 28; in trade.
7

4 8
The variety of portrait-models used is par- Berlin.
ticularly expressive of the futility of assigning aurei 9 Vienna; misread by Gardner, BMC. 1.
1 0
and denarii to the same area as any single group For the family, * nobility of the revolution',
of cities which copies their heads on coins: if this vide Syme, RR. pp. 382, 385.
method were permissible, it would be necessary to Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 30; BM, Naples.
1 1

attribute the denarii of the East, of Lugdunum, and For the Messapian gens vide Schulze, p. 39
1 2

of the * Caesaraugusta' group all to Corinth, since n. 1.

the heads of all three are imitated by the Corinthian Ibid. 34; cf. Scholz, NZ. 1902, p. 26; Berlin,
1 3

die-engravers!—e.g. imitations of BMC. 316, 602 Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 36; Berlin, etc.
1 4

(BM), 666, etc. (Berlin), 500, etc. (Cambridge), For die N. Italian name vide Schulze, p. 367.
1 5

,665 ? (Edwards). Denarii circulated widely, and the Ibid. 27; Paris, Turin,
1 6

portrait-models were copied throughout the empire For the gens vide Schulze, p. 458. A L .
1 7

as each superseded the last: attribution of the denarii Hirtuleius had been quaestor to Sertorius (Livy,
from the appearance of similar heads at this or that Ep. xc, xci).
city is based on a false hypothesis. See pp. 122, 222, Ibid. 37 ff.; cf. BMC. 2; Paris, Vienna.
1 8

83, 468.
270 THE ROMAN COLONIES
The Sura o f (1) must be earlier than the duovir o f (5), since their coins have different
ethnics, C. I . B V T . and C. A . B V T . respectively; we may assume a refoundation by
Augustus (p. 305) who is portrayed on the latter coin. The other pieces, many o f
which, i f not all, must be later than (1), have the plain ethnic B V T [ H R ] . ; such
reversions to simplicity have been noted elsewhere (p. 266). A specimen o f (1)
1
reading • • • E T S V R A I T E R . proves that the legend on the other variety is not
• • - E T S V R A I I V I R I T E R . Contrarily, Gardner's interpretation o f (2) as I I V I R I
2

3
EP., from an example on which the sixth letter resembles ah ( I ) , is shown to be wrong
4
by an example reading I I V I R . T E R . The same piece corrects the praenomen o f
Cocceius from Caius to Aulus. (3) lacks an ethnic, but must be placed here owing to
its similarity i n types and style to a coin o f M . Pullienus.5
A n interpretation o f Q. A . on (3) is necessary. This is such a common abbreviation
for Q(uaestor) A(erarii) that i t could not have been understood i f i t represented any
other title (p. 20). N o w i t often happens that the municipal office o f quaestor aerarii
6

1
(arcae) is mentioned i n inscriptions at the end o f the cursus honorum.' Since such lists
8 10
regularly include the successive posts i n order o f tenure, Mommsen9 and Spehr
consider that the quaestura aerarii was perhaps even superior to the duovirate, but
11
Mantey shows that lesser magistracies could be accepted after the duovirate. A n
alternative solution, which he offers, is corroborated b y the present piece. The magi-
strates who place their names on colonial coins do not, as on inscriptions, record past
distinctions and offices, but only their present office. The title o f P. Dastidius and L .
12
Cornelius therefore confirms his supposition that the quaestura aerarii was i n some
13
cities at least coincidental w i t h the chief magistracy. A t Buthrotum the later coinage is
in general reserved for even higher financial officers, the quinquennales, who exercised a
14
general supervision over the activity o f the treasury; however, the duoviral issue
(5) may also be late, since i t alone has G(olonia) A(ugusta).

1
Berlin. 2
BMC. 1. 14
L.c. p. 35. 1 2
L.c. p. 49-
4
3 BM. Vienna. 1 3
Identity of the two offices is, by this analogy,
5
Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 32; Berlin. likely to be the explanation of some of the inscrip-
6
Mantey, De gradu et statu quaestorum, etc., tions in which the quaestorship is omitted from the
Diss. Halle, 1882, p. 34, believes that this title is not cursus honorum, e.g. Mantey, l.c. pp. 15, 49. It is
pre-Trajanic. But even if Mommsen's supposition possible also, though not considered by Mantey,
of an earlier appearance (SB. Leipzig 1849, P* 49> that a number of appearances of plain q. at the end
2

pace Eph. epigr. ill, pp. 324, 327) is incorrect, the of a cursus honorum (e.g. Inscr. Reg. Neap. 3939,
argumentum ex silentio, dubious in any case when4635,4765,5024) refer to the quaestura aerarii, since
the evidence is so slight, is shattered by this coin. the ordinary quaestorship seems hardly important
7 CIL. v, 3938, 4459, 2785; cf. Orelli, In- enough to warrant a tenure after the duovirate (cf.
scriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3966, etc. Last, CAH. xi, p. 461; Dig. L, 4. 18. 2). But the
8
Mantey, l.c. p. 14. whole of this intricate problem needs a reconsidera-
9 CIL. v, p. 240. tion based on the numismatic evidence which
10
De summis magistratibus coloniarum atque Mantey, Spehr, etc., ignore.
municipiorum, Diss. Halle, 1881, p. 38. 1 4
Cf. Hardy, Six Roman Laws, p. 148.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 271
The same Sura who appears on (5) may be deciphered on a specimen o f (6), on 1

which the single name o f Graecinus is accompanied b y the type parlant o f a leg. ' B i n
the reverse field o f (5), suggests that the figure, who appears to be raising a cup for a
toast, is the genius o f Buthrotum; this issue is likely to commemorate the Augustan
restitutio o f the city, whose epithet i t alone records. Since M . Pullienus quin. signs one
coin by himself, another on which Graecinus Milesius (his colleague on [4]) appears i n
equal seclusion is no doubt parallel and contemporary. This Milesian must be a freed-
man o f P. Pomponius Graecinus, known from the Amores o f O v i d (c. 15/14 B.C.), 2

who became consul suffectus i n A . D . 16. T . Pomponius no doubt owes his gentilicium
3

to a member o f the same family, Atticus, who had possessed large estates at Buth-
4
rotum.
6
The personifications S A L V T I S * and C O N C O R D I A which appear on coins o f
Graecinus and Pullienus are noteworthy for various reasons. The 'Possessive*
7
Genitive Case is a Republicanism not found on the Roman series until the Civil Wars
of 68-70. I t is remarkable to see on an aureus* attributed to the revolt o f Civilis (and
excluded from an earlier date on grounds o f style), the conjunction o f the same
personifications with the same difference o f Case—SALVTIS C O N C O R D I A —
suggesting that their connection is due to a special association and formula; the
coincidence can hardly be accidental. T w o writers confirm this conclusion. I n 11 B.C.,
as Dio 9 announces, Augustus used a sum of money, subscribed for an effigy o f himself,
1 0
to erect instead statues o f Salus Publica, Concordia and Pax. O v i d records o f March
30th: I anus adorandus, cumque hoc Concordia mitis, Et Romana Salus araque Pads erit.
The word Romana is the key to the early manifestation, on these Buthrotan issues, o f
the kind o f Imperial abstraction which became so prevalent and important i n the
11
propaganda o f the years following the death o f Nero. The passages quoted make i t
significant that, at this early date when such ideas are still partly unformulated and
12
coin-types on the whole somewhat feeble, PA CIS is found on a coin o f Pella to
complete the triad (p. 281). G E N . POP. R O M . , R O M A , and SPES also occur
colonial issues under Augustus (pp. 173,263,281); but on the official series the concrete
is still preferred, and even under Tiberius abstractions are often presented i n the form
of a compliment to the ladies o f the domus principis (p. 146). The PACIS type is as
early as 25 B . C , but the coincidence at Buthrotum o f Concordia and Salus is likely to
refer (for some reason unknown) to the gesture o f Augustus in 10 B.C. By calculation
from the first foundation b y L . Plautius Plancus (p. 9), a colonial lustrum fell due i n
1
Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 38; Paris. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. lxix. See also p. 153.
7

3
11, 10; cf. Ex Ponto iv, 9. Ibid. p. 308; Vienna.
8

3
CIL. vi, 10399; cf- PIR* m> 7<&. 540« > 35* »
9 L I V 2

4
Cic. Att. 1, 5, xn, 6, I6A. I owe this suggestion Fasti 111, 881.
1 0

to R. Syme. " Cf. Charlesworth, The Virtues of a Roman

5
Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 35; Vienna. Emperor, pp. 12 ff.
6
Ibid. 36; Berlin. » Cf. Syme, RR. pp. 469 f.
272 THE ROMAN COLONIES
c. 10 B.C.; to this we may assign the quinquennalian college (4). By allotting the third
quinquennalian tenure o f Graecinus to c. A . D . I , we see that, as at many other mints,
the colonial series terminated some years before Augustus's death: discoveries o f
official aes i n Epirus (p. 116) show that local issues were withdrawn i n its favour.

Gaebler and Kubitschek have written the latest words about Macedonia, but not the
last. Nor does the present writer aspire to do this. The coins are mostly very rare and
very enigmatic; i n no other part o f the Empire, except perhaps Africa, were the die-
engravers so lacking i n forethought for future students of history. However, an investi-
gation—taking into consideration certain new conclusions and unpublished pieces—
necessitates drastic reattributions both o f the coins and o f colonial datings. I t has, for
example, escaped notice that the numismatic record o f the period commences w i t h two
official Roman series, struck respectively by (?) M . Acilius, Caesarian quaestorpropraetore,
and Q. Hortensius Hortalus, Republican praefectus coloniis deducendis (pp. 17, 33).
The status o f the second o f these officials has been seen to suggest an extensive colonial
programme: indeed, Brutus himself had promised, on the morrow o f the dictator's
assassination, that he would carry out all foundations that Caesar had planned (p. 33).
Besides the official issue o f Hortensius, two coins o f the highest rarity survive as
evidence o f the fulfilment o f this promise. The first o f these is the following small
piece ( o f different style from the larger proconsular coin o f Hortensius):
H A M M O N head o f Jupiter A m m o n to r i g h t — H O R T . C O L . D . two corn-ears
( P i . V I I I , 21).
1

2
A m m o n was the tutelary deity o f Cassandrea, to which this coin is to be assigned. The
reverse legend may represent Hortensius coloniae deductor* or Hortensius coloniam
deduxit* Here is a preliminary argument against KornemannV belief that Augustus
was the originator o f five Macedonian colonies—including Cassandrea. Like other
cities that celebrate their deductio by such issues, Cassandrea does not strike again for
6
many years.
The foundation-coinage o f another city is equally isolated:
7
C O L . DIENSIS p l o u g h — D I A N A B A P H V R . Diana Baphyras running to
right, w i t h bow and arrow, and trampling on a vexillum lying horizontally
w i t h taenia waving upwards (Pi. I X , 18). 8

1
Gaebler, Z/2V. xxxvi, 1926, p. 139; Berlin, Paris. 7
The local river is Baphyras; cf. Oberhummer,
2
Kubitschek, Gnomon, xm, 1937, p. 24. PW. 11, 2850.
3 Cf.Babba, and creator at Corinth (pp. 222,266). Gaebler, NG. 111, 2, p. 1; Vienna, BM; mis-
8

4
Cf. Sinope, Dyrrhachium (pp. 252, 275). read by Friedlander (Bull, dell* Inst, di corr. arch.
5 242 ff. 1870, p. 197), Imhoof-Blumer (MG. p. 74* .*9)>
6
But, pace Gaebler, I.e., earlier than Claudius: Head (BMC. 2). The type is clear on the Berlin
there are coins of Tiberius (Dresden, ? Istanbul), specimen.
and probably Caligula (Gotha).
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 273
A number o f coins attributed by Gaebler to D i u m belong to Dyrrhachium
(p. 275): on all that remain, w i t h the exception o f this alone, the colony is described
1
as colonia lulia. Kubitschek interprets the reverse correctly, but w i t h a protest that
Diana, the tutelary goddess, can hardly be intended to trample down the vexillum? o f
which use was commonly made i n the foundation o f colonies.3 However, a strangely
4
similar type is pointed out b y A l f o l d i on a denarius from the same part o f the Empire,
struck by Brutus: on that, Victory is trampling on the sceptre, which symbolised
Caesar's illegal domination and was probably a type o f his Macedonian orichalcum
issue (p. 17). N o w a vexillum could be made the object o f hostile propaganda as well
as a sceptre, especially on a colonial coin, and i t is significant that, on 16 Mar. 44,
Brutus explicitly alluded i n public to the hateful military character o f the dictator's
colonial deductiones—he disliked the word imperare*—and announced his intention o f
avoiding such methods at his o w n foundations (p. 33). Although he failed entirely to
6
live up to this civilian ideal, i t is i n accordance with his programme that D i u m should,
under his government, strike its inauguratory issue w i t h a type adapted from his
7
contemporary denarii and alluding to the same trend o f his professed policy. There
are two further reasons for attributing the foundation o f D i u m to the time o f Brutus.
First, the ethnic omits the epithet lulia which rarely fails to accompany the word colonia
8
at Julian foundations; secondly, an inscription, as rightly interpreted by Kubitschek,?
10
identifies its tribe as Papiria, which is found also at Cassandrea —certainly established
11
by Hortensius—but at no other Macedonian colony, and rarely elsewhere.
Thus two small Macedonian issues bear witness to the scope o f the activity o f
Hortensius, the second praefectus coloniis deducendis o f whom there is numismatic
record. This title—probably reserved for comprehensive tasks and not held by
contemporary founders o f less importance such as T i . Nero, Q. Orca and Cn. Plancus
—became obsolete soon after Philippi. Hortensius is a proconsul to w h o m the title o f
praefectus was added; thereafter, the foundation o f cities became a regular duty o f
1
Gaebler, ZfN. xxxvi, 1926, p. 127. The Hortensius need not seem contradictory to this in-
absence of the epithet here inspired Friedlander, I.e., terpretation: there it is accompanied by the other
with total lack of analogy or probability, to suppose regular colonial emblems, the plough and the yoke,
that this is a pre-Caesarian colonial issue. An attri- and the choice of the vexillum by the local mint at
bution to Balbinus (Head, BMC. l.c.) is based both Dium as the symbol of an unpopular policy need
on a misreading and on astonishing neglect of have had no effect on a coin issued by different
stylistic considerations. authority and perhaps far away, whose type merely
2
Gnomon XIII, 1937, p. 23 n. 2. includes the regular colonial features. No stigma
3
Gaebler, l.c. p. 126; cf. Cic. 77 Phil. 102. attached to vexilla as such, but they were, on occa-
4
Rom. Mitt. 1935, p. 110. sion, a convenient vehicle for symbolic propaganda;
* Quintilian ix, 3. 95; cf. Syme, RR. p. 320. the apparent contradiction merely shows faulty
For his military colonies, vide Larsen, ES. iv, co-ordination. See p. 34.
p. 448: for his levies in Macedonia, Appian, BC. in, 8
CIL. m, 592. 9 J , . 241.
mp p

79; cf. Syme, RR. p. 295 n. 1. 1 0

Ephemeris Epigraphica 11, 1048.
7
That a vexillum occurs on the official issue of Kubitschek, l.c. p. 271.
1 1
274 THE ROMAN COLONIES
governors, so that the special title was dropped (p. 206). The earliest Macedonian
colonial issues o f the Antonian rigime illustrate this development: 1

(1) A . I . C. V . P. head o f Antony to r i g h t — Q . P A Q V I V S R V F . L E G . C. D .

2
colonist ploughing.
(2) same—same inscription, man seated to left i n curule chair: urn (Pi. V I I I , . 22).3
(3) same inscription, young head facing—same inscription and plough i n wreath.*
(4) same—same inscription i n wreath.5
(5) same inscription, urn—as ( 3 ) /
Coins o f Sinope and Apamea suggest that Finite sentences are found on deductio-
issues (p. 256); another o f Dyrrhachium w i l l demonstrate that these were i n the form
C O L O N ( w / n ) - - - DEDVX(zV) (p. 275). The reverse o f the present series should
therefore be restored as Q. P A Q V I V S RVF(aj) LEG(atus) C(ploniam) D(eduxit).
There is no evidence or analogy for the existence o f any legatus coloniae deducendaei o f
the provincial deductores and constitutors (outside the imperial house) who coined i n
the triumvirate and principate, all who have been identified were also governors o f
7
provinces—thus the Oscan Q. Paquius was Antony's governor i n Macedonia-Achaia
just as M . Turius, founder o f Lampsacus, represented him i n Asia (p. 246). W e have
seen that their title legatus is particularly applicable to the period o f Antony's tour at
the beginning o f the triumvirate (p. 247); moreover, the predecessor o f L . Marcius
Censorinus (41 B.C.) i n Macedonia is unknown, just as there is a break i n the Asiatic
8

Fasti at the same time. The gaps are filled by Q. Paquius and M . Turius respectively.
Ganter? describes these years as a period o f provisional administration: this is true i n so
far as the governors, like those o f Sextus Pompeius, did not use the regular proconsular
10
title. Thus there is no reason to doubt the accepted interpretation K(ntom) l(ussu),
which is paralleled at Paestum (p. 289). The ethnic C. V . P. has been rightly ascribed to
colonia victrix Philippi"—founded just after the battle o f that name. This attribution
is confirmed b y the appearance o f that epithet (or a suitable allusion to the goddess
Victoria) on later Augustan coins o f the same colony:
C O L . P H I L , p l o u g h — V I C . A V G . two modii (?)."
lx
C O H O R . P R A E . P H I L , three standards—VIC. A V G . Victory on cippus.
1
These are described in detail by Collart, 9
P. 35; cf. p. 39.
Philippes, pp. 224 ff. 1 0
Cf. Lex Coloniae Genetivae luliae, 104.
* Gaebler, ZfN. xxxix, 1929, p. 261. 1; Berlin, Heuzey's suggestion Augusta Iulia {Mission ar-
Munich. 3 Ibid. 2; BM, etc. chdologique en Macddoine, p. 18), improbable in
4
Ibid. 3; Leningrad, Berlin. itself, is eliminated by the presence of Antony's
5 Ibid. 4; Berlin, Munich. portrait.
6
Gotha. Others described (e.g. Gaebler, l.c. 5, 1 1
Gaebler, I.e.; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 253.
6) are false. Previously Eckhel's attribution to Gaul (DN. v,
7
Cf. Solmsen, Studien iur lateinischen Lout- p. 265) had been maintained, e.g. by Ribbeck,
geschichte, pp. 152, 171. For a somewhat later Senatores Romani, p. 53. 280.
Paccius see Halaesa (p. 195). 1 2
Turin; Gaebler, NG. in, 2, p. 103. 16.
8
Gaebler, NG. 111, 1, p. 7; cf. Ganter, p. 31. 1 3
BM, etc.; ibid. 14.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 275
A third coin o f our period is the following:
C O L . A V G . I V L . P H I L . IVSSV A V G . laureate head o f Augustus to right—
A V G . D I V I F . D I V O I V L p O ] Augustus and Caesar, w i t h outstretched hands,
on a cippus; before i t an altar (Pi. I X , 22).
1

Probably these three pieces commemorate the refoundation. Antony had dedi-
cated the first foundation to Julius—possibly as a colonia Iulia Antonia like Dyme
(p. 264); the present group shows that Augustus ordered a second foundation, for the 2

benefit o f ex-members o f the praetorian cohorts, which had been reconstituted as an

Imperial guard (p. 437). The last coin indicates that Julius and Augustus became the
tutelary deities o f the colony.3
It is noteworthy that D i o , speaking o f c. 30 B.C., links Philippi w i t h Dyrrhachium:
4

TOTS nev TTAeiocn TO TE Auppcfyiov Kcd TOUS OiAi-rnrovs aAAcc TE ITTOIKEIV &VT£8COK6.
But this statement does not enable us confidently to attribute the colony to c. 30,
since, first, the epithet Augusta, instead o f Iulia, on the coins o f Philippi shows that
this allotment at least was not actually made (or completed) until after 27 B . C , and
the portrait-model o f the last coin suggests c. 2 B.C. as a terminus post quern', secondly,
5 6

it must also be remembered that a number o f pre-Augustan colonies have only been
saved from total oblivion b y coins. Such foundations are neglected by Pliny, and the
Augustan tradition quickly swamped all record o f beneficent activity b y Antony.
A number o f coins o f considerable obscurity w i l l be used to show that both these
reasons for scepticism are relevant to Dyrrhachium (pp. 276 ff.), which was founded by
Antony, and refounded by Augustus, again not i n 30 B.C., but shortly before our era.
7 8
Dorsch and Kubitschek remark w i t h surprise that there appears to be no coinage o f
this town. The latter suggests, first, that i t was probably not i n the Augustan lex
provinciae, and, secondly, that i n Macedonia coining-right was associated w i t h the ius
Italicum. Such conjectures cannot be supported by evidence, analogy or probability;
an alternative solution is provided by two unattributed coins. O f the earlier o f these
only a single example appears to survive:?
COLONIA bust o f Venus to right, w i t h wing at shoulder.
Q.PA. (?) D E D V X . tripod ( P i . I X , 21).
This piece is o f early style and fabric suggestive o f the forties: the initial letters on the
0
reverse leave little doubt that SestiniV attribution to Q . Paquius Rufus was correct,
1
BM, Cambridge (McLean 3269), -Milan, Cat. 4
50. 4. Cf. Collart, Philippes, p. 229.
313; misread by M. 1, p. 846. 280; Cohen, Descrip- 5 BMC. Imp. Aug. 538.
6
tion historique des monnaies frappies sous Vempire If, as seems probable, the issue was con-
romain, Aug. 739 f., etc. temporary with the refoundation.
2 7
It is noteworthy that iussu Augusti takes the De civitatis romanae.. .propagatione, Diss,
place of the earlier phrase iussu populi (cf. Sherwin- Breslau, 1886, p. 11.
White, p. 132: Sisenna 17. 119): auctoritas takes the Gnomon xm, 1937, p. 24.
8

place of lex. 9 Paris.

3
A similar type appears at the free city of Amphi- 1 0
Lettere VII, p. 39; cf. Pellerin, Recueil de
polis (BMC. 77). me-dailles de peuples et de villes, m, pi. C X V I , 1.
276 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
and that we may read Q P A [ Q V L R V F . COL.] DEDVX(zV). This Gaebler refuses to
believe, since, owing to its incompatibility w i t h any o f his groups, he rejects the coin
from the Macedonian series altogether. The style is, indeed, not that o f the cities on or
near the Thermaic Gulf; but i t is certainly that of eastern Europe, where east and west
meet to produce a style which decisively but indefinably distinguishes its issues from
those o f Asia or o f regions west and south o f Rome (p. 478). The reverse type occurs
particularly on the east shores o f the Adriatic—for example, at Zacynthus and Buth-
rotum (pp. 40, 269)—probably owing to the influence o f the oracle i n the hinterland
2
at Dodona. This coin cannot be o f Buthrotum itself, since the first founder o f this
colony was L . Plancus (p. 9). Gaebler points out the regularity w i t h which Mace-
3

donian cities honour their tutelary deity: i t is therefore significant that the head on the
obverse o f this coin is closely copied from winged busts o f Venus such as appear on
Roman denarii (p. 49 n. 14). N o w Venus was the tutelary goddess o f Dyrrhachium, 4

which is precisely i n the region indicated by considerations o f style and type: a very
5
similar bust is found near by at Phoenice.
The attribution to Dyrrhachium, tenuous i n itself, is strongly reinforced by another
6
very rare series. This is represented by only two known specimens, both unattributed;
it has been ignored by Gaebler and all other writers except Boutkowski,7 who completely
misreads it. O n the obverse is a bare head o f Augustus to right, and on the reverse o f
8
one example, within a wreath, can be read: C. I.VE.91 T I . T A R . | I I V I R . Q. | D . D . ( P i .
V I I I , 23). I n style this piece is so closely akin to the foundation-coin just described
that i t could hardly originate from any other region. Since, by the analogy o f other
Balkan colonies (p. 282), T i . Tar. may well be the name o f a single unaccompanied
quinquennalis™ i t is probable that the first line o f the legend, with its characteristic
ethnic form C. I . , contains the titulature o f the city—C(oIonia) \{ulia) VEQieria).
Venus was the special protectress o f no suitable c i t y " except Dyrrhachium, whose
Julio-Antonian establishment has been indicated by the cognate earlier coin w i t h
12
the head o f Venus. The attribution o f the later piece is confirmed by a convenient
prosopographical probability. There is good reason to believe that L . Tarius Rufus,
13
the proletarian Picentine, became legatuspropraetore in Macedonia—temporarily at least
'imperial'—not long before or after his suffect consulship o f 16 B.C. Nothing, then, 14

1
ZfN. xxxix, 1929, p. 269. 1 1
Sicca, Nabrissa and Rusicade are excluded on
2
Cf. Reisch, PW. v, 1678. grounds of style and fabric.
3
ZfN. x x x v i , 1926, p. 138. 1 2
Confirmative of this date is a letter of Brutus in
4
Catullus x x x i v , 11;cf. Philippson,PW.v,i887. 43 B.C. (Cic. Brut. 1,6.4), mentioning Dyrrhachium
5 Ugolini, Albania antica, ii, p. 160, fig. 95. without reference to enfranchisement.
6
BM, Gotha. 7 DN. 1338. 8
Gotha. 1 3
Syme, RR. p. 362.
9 On the London specimen V E is not ligatured. 1 4
Ibid. pp. 330 n. 4, 373, 376; cf. Groag, PW.
10
In view, however, of the conclusions reached (2/?.), i n , 2321, Lann&e ipigraphique, 1936. 18;
in the last section, it cannot be considered entirely TTpaKTiKoc TTJS IV 'A0r|vais dpxaioAoyiKfjs rraipfccs,
impossible that the present duovir was not rather i x , 1934, p. 12.
quaestor aerarii; cf. for a similar official p. 152.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 277
is more likely than that T I . TAR(zW), the quinquennalis o f the coin, owed his nomen
and enfranchisement to this man. Gentilicia beginning w i t h Tar. are infrequent, and
the Tarii at least were o f such humble origin that a local magistrate o f this name could
scarcely owe i t to any but L . Tarius Rufus. Both coins, then, must be attributed to
an Antonian colonia lulia Veneria at Dyrrhachium. The later one probably belongs to
the category o f isolated issues commemorating an anniversary o f the colony, as at a
number of other cities (p. 295): the portrait-model (of c. 20-18 B . C . ) suggests that the
1

occasion was the quarter-centenary i n c. 17 B . C . — a date i n accordance w i t h probabili-

ties concerning Tarius* s governorship and w i t h the fact, shortly to be demonstrated,
that Dyrrhachium was still colonia lulia at that date.
The parallel between Dyrrhachium and Philippi is now seen to be a double one:
not only were both, as D i o relates, refounded b y Augustus, but the first foundations
of both were Julio-Antonian. KornemannV assumption o f a second tribe at Dyrrha-
3 4
chium, Quirina, i f i t were justifiable—which is extremely doubtful —would suggest
successive Roman foundations far more readily than the double community, Dyrrha-
chium-Epidamnus, whose existence he groundlessly deduces. Augustus was chary o f
founding completely new colonies, but often adopted the more cautious policy of rein-
forcing those planned by his predecessors (p. 305 ), which then became lulia Augusta. I n
particular, as D i o informs us o f Bononia,* he was anxious to efface Antonian colonies
by refoundation.
His refoundation o f Dyrrhachium, explicitly recorded by D i o , is illustrated b y an
as and a semis o f another college whose relevance and even existence have been
ignored:
(1) CAESAR A V G V S T V S bare head to r i g h t — C . V . R., M . IVS., M . H E R E N N -
IVS I I V I R . Q V I N Q . ; C. I . A . D . i n field. Rome standing w i t h spear and
globe (Pi. V I I I , 25).6

(2) do.—C. V . R., M . I . , M . H E R . I I V I R . Q V I N Q . C. I . A . D . plough (Pi. V I I I ,

2 ).7
4

8
The two coins cannot be rejected, but they must be drastically reconsidered. Imhoof-
1
BMC. Imp. Aug. 681, etc. examples of (1) have been tooled, and Marchese
2
P. 549; cf. CIL. vm, 3079. Serafini (as he stated to the writer) holds the same
3
Besides Aemilia, whose date cannot be de- opinion of the unique and unpublished specimen of
termined (Kubitschek, Imp. p. 242). (2). In view of their close correspondence to each
4
Kubitschek, Imp. l.c; Praschniker and Schober, other, their distinctive style and their complete dif-
Schriften der Balkankommission, Akademie der ference from all other coins, it is most unlikely that
Wissenschaften in Wien, VIII, p. 38 n. 46. the legend of either has been radically altered. In
5
Dio L, 6. 3. the first place, forgeries of obscure colonial issues
6
Berlin, Gotha; Gaebler, ZfN. xxxvi, 1926, are unusual. Secondly, it is improbable that a forger
pp. 127 f. should have worked on coins now as far apart as
7
Vatican. Berlin, Gotha and the Vatican; thirdly, it would
Gaebler, l.c. p. 127, considers that the known have been stupid and unprofitable to alter three
278 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
Blumer states Macedonian provenance, and attributes the coin to D i u m on the grounds
2
o f the figure o f 'Pallas', which appears on much later issues o f that mint. But
Minerva-Roma is an obvious colonial type: she is found, for example, i n the present
period, at Cnossus w i t h R O M A (p. 263). Even i f her appearance were rare, there was
nothing to prevent third-century craftsmen at D i u m from imitating a first-century
model from another Macedonian city. D i u m was indeed known, at the end o f the
first century, as colonia Iulia Augusta.* But the epithet Augusta is perfectly appropriate
to post-Augustan foundations (p. 198); and it is significant that Dium's coins o f Tiberius*
still describe i t merely as C O L O N I A I V L . DIENSIS, whereas the present pieces i n -
clude A(ugusta) i n the ethnic. The earliest issue, and tribe, o f D i u m have been shown
to indicate a proposed Julian foundation, accomplished by Brutus: after the battle o f
Philippi this would naturally reassume the Julian epithet. Pliny's mention o f the
colony5 does not prove an Augustan foundation: his evidence concerning D i u m may
not have been earlier than A . D . 14 —perhaps i t was considerably later. But i t might,
6

equally, have been the Brutan foundation which he knew and recorded, or even a
foundation b y Octavian between 31 and 27, as i n Spain. A t any rate the ethnic
C O L O N I A I V L . DIENSIS on the coinage o f Tiberius disposes o f the possibility
o f an Augustan draft after 27. D i u m , like Pella, does not become Augusta until a later
date, and our two coins must be ascribed elsewhere.
Their true origin is indicated b y comparison with Tiberian issues, w i t h the heads o f
7
the ruling princeps ( T I . C A [ E ] . C. I . A . D . ) and o f Augustus ( A V G [ V ] . C. I . A . D . ,
A V G . P. P. ), radiate and laureate respectively (Pi. V I I I , 26). These have been allotted,
8

9 10 11
for no good reason, to D i u m , D y m e and even Dertosa: but a better attribution is
suggested b y a striking resemblance i n portraiture to the smaller piece o f M . Jus. and
M . Herennius (with the same ethnic C. I . A . D . ) and to the issue o f T i . Tarius w i t h
C. I . V E . Since C. I . V E . is a colony at Dyrrhachium, i t is impossible to refrain
from ascribing the issues o f M . Jus. and M . Herennius, and those o f Tiberius w i t h

coins which were already of unparalleled character, 58) was incorrect, and could find no parallel or like-
and would not gain in value by the alteration, lihood for a name C. VRMIVS. The pellet after the
Fourthly, it is most unlikely of all that he would C is clearly present on both (1) and (2). MissNewby
have been astute enough to retouch in such a (p. 82), copying from Boutkowski, is not even au
seemingly unintelligent way: the general shape of fait with Gaebler's correction.
the letters remains, but their exact interpretation can 1
MG. p. 74. * Cf. Gaebler, l.c. p. 128.
only be regained from a knowledge of (1). Such a 3
CIL. 111, 548 7281. 4
BMC. 3.
forger would have expended much labour, origin- 5
NH. iv, 35. Cf. Jones, CERP. pp. 495 f.
6

ality and subtlety without the least recompense. It 7

T I . CAE., A V G . : BM, Athens, Imhoof-
is more reasonable to infer that (2), if not blundered, Blumer, MG. p. 165/47. T I . CA., AVGV.: Vienna,
is a genuine coin unskilfully cleaned or tooled with- Paris. Inscriptions blundered: Berlin.
out reference to (1). For the alteration of (1) there 8
Vienna. 9 BM.
is no inherent probability, and no evidence: it was 1 0
BM (also!), Paris, Vienna.
only urged by Gaebler because he found that " Eckhel, DN. 1, 47; Hiibner, MLI. p. 38;
Imhoof-Blumer's reading DVRMIVS (MG. p. 74. Newby,. p. 83—entirely inappropriate to style.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 279
1
C. I . A . D . , to the same mint. C. I . V E . and C. I . A . D . , then, are successive stages o f the
same t o w n : Dyrrhachium, like Philippi, was first setded i n 42-41 b y Q . Paquius Rufus,
and then, after c. 16 B . C . , b y Augustus.
I t is now possible to attempt an interpretation o f the curious legends o f (1) and (2).
A n issue o f Apamea (p. 257), supported b y inscriptions, has documented the known
fact that the second foundations o f Augustus provided him w i t h the title Restitutor
2
—which has a long and noteworthy history. Since, therefore, the new ethnic
C. I . A . D . does not contain the old cognomen VE(neria\ and C. V . , the initial letters
of the reverse inscriptions o f both (1) and (2), are on both coins separated b y a pellet,
it is difficult to resist the interpretation:
C(ploniae) V(eneriae) R(estitutori) M . lVS(tuleius?*) [et] M . H E R E N N I V S
I I V I R © QVINQ(uennales) C(oloniae) l(uliae) A(ugustae) D(yrrkachensium)S
The portrait-models establishes c. 17 B.C. as an upper limit for the restitutio: this limit
can be further advanced by the consideration that T i . Tarius, who coined before the
restoration, took his name from the governorship o f L* Tarius Rufus not long after
16 B.C. Reckoning, then, from the deductio b y Paquius Rufus i n c. 42-41, the quinquen-
nalian year o f M . Justuleius (?) and M . Herennius must fall, at the earliest, i n 12-11 B . C .
Confirmation o f such a formula, and yet another sign o f the numismatic emphasis on
such foundations and refoundations, is found at Pella. This was another colonia Iulia
6
Augusta for which, b y analogy \vith the rest, there is a strong general probability o f a
first Julian settlement, carried out b y Antony or Brutus. Here again the numismatic
evidence corroborates this likelihood. The earliest coins o f this important colony are
the following t w o :
(1) I M P . D I V I F. A C T I O Augustus standing to left on p r o w — N O N I V S
7
SVLPICIVS I I V I R . Q V I N Q . wreath on curule chair.
(2) SPES C O L O N I A E PELLENSIS Hope standing to left—CAES. A . R.
8
F L A R V N T N . S. I I V I R . Q V I N . bare head o f Augustus to right.
Since some specimens o f the latter (Pi. V I I I , 27)? certainly show a pellet between the A
10
and R immediately following CAES., Gaebler has made an extraordinary interpreta-
tion of the legend, which has w o n the acceptance o f R e g l i n g " and the applause o f
1
A countermark of PEL(Az) on (1) (Gotha) is no occurred in the lustral year of a previous setdement,
more suitable to coins of Dium than to those of see p. 161.
Dyrrhachium, at the head of the Via Egnatia (cf. 5 BMC Imp. Aug. 665-9 (Berlin).
Philippson, PW. v, 1883). 6
Kornemann 243; cf. Imhoof-Blumer, MG.
2
Cf. Gage, Byianuon, xi, 1936, p. 333. p. 86. 98 f.
3
Vide Schulze, p. 459. Or Justus, or Justius, 7
BM; Gaebler, NG. m, 2, p. 21.
ibid.: vide CIL. x, 2631, 5670, xi, 578a,b. It is 8
Berlin, BM, Vienna, etc.: ibid. 20.
fruidess to ask why the names are divided in this ' E.g. Berlin.
way: at this distance oftimewe cannot identify the ZfN. xxxvi, 1926, pp. 118,137; cf. NG. 111, 2,
1 0

fortuitous elements in numismatics. p. 97.

4
For quinquennales at refoundations, when these " WMK. p. 91.
280 THE ROMAN COLONIES
1
Kubitschek (ein der reiiendsten Wahrnehmungeri). Gaebler considers this to be the
first issue o f a new colony, and, presuming a lack o f copper i n the neighbourhood,*
maintains.that the inauguratory qidnquenncdes had to sell local raw materials i n order to
procure the medium for coinage. This view he bases on the solution o f the legend as
CAESA R(uta)—citing the legal phrase ruta caesa denoting raw materials. He goes on
to explain that CAESAR is here the vehicle for a double entendre (like T-Epuna-cr«ov
with a type o f Hermes at Termessus), and produces this restoration o f the whole
inscription:

CAESA R(uta) F L A R V N T N(onius) S(ulpicius) IIVIR(*) QVIN(quennales).

T o this arresting supposition a number o f objections can be raised:
(i) The clause would be pregnant w i t h meaning to an impossible degree. The
quinquennales did not strike their coins from the raw material; far less did they strike the
raw material itself! Even the most compressed numismatic Latin could not achieve
such a compendium; i f the sentence were perpetrated, nobody would have under-
stood i t , even i n an unabbreviated form.
(ii) The set phrase was not caesa ruta, but ruta caesa;* no example o f the inversion is
extant.
(iii) Quinquennales could not have been appointed i n the first year o f a newly
enfranchised city; for example at Lampsacus we have found I I V I R I COL(pnia)
DED(ucta) PR(imi). Exceptions to this rule could only occur when Roman institutions
had already been established at an earlier date, as, for example, when the foundation
in question was a restitutio (p. 277) or a conversion from Latinitas (p. 161). These coins,
then, signed b y a pair o f quinquennales, cannot be the foundation-issue o f a new colony.
(iv) Gaebler's interpretation is confirmed by no parallel o f any kind, whereas a
large number o f analogies support another view:—
The coinages o f Apamea and Dyrrhachium (pp. 257, 277) provide examples o f
restitutio issues comparable to those, almost equally unrecognised, which commemo-
rate deductiones and constitutions. Pella, which was first a' colonia Iulia, is likely to
have been refounded, rather than founded, by Augustus. The Apamean series shows the
formula S(enatus) C(pnsulto) C(ploniam) R(estituit). N o w at this period administrative
senatus consulta, when proposed (as they so frequendy were) b y Augustus, were
recorded w i t h the addition auctore Caesare- Augusto or Caesaris auctoritate (p. 445).
The important coinages w i t h SC and C A , existing side b y side at single mints, have
illustrated this conjunction, and shown that the two formulas were complementary and
interchangeable (p. 108). Other sources effectively corroborate this conclusion as
regards the colonial setdements. Apamea is restored SC, but a passage o f the Res

1
Gnomon, X I I I , 1937, p. 23. 3 Thesaurus Ling. Lat. I I I , 56; cf. Totius Latini-
2
But there were Macedonian copper-mines: vide tads Lexicon, v, p. 279.
Davies, The Roman Mines in Europe, p. 227 n. 4.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 281
Gestae? according to the best interpretation,* mentions colonias mea auctoritate
3
deductas, and this formula is paralleled elsewhere. The same w i l l apply to refounda-
tions, such as that o f colonia lulia Augusta Pella. Since, therefore, owing to the clear
4
existence o f a pellet between the A and R, CAESAR cannot be read (except as a
possible sous-entendre) the legends o f (2) can be restored as follows:
SPES i n the exergue. C O L O N I A E PELLENSIS—CAES(arw) A(uctoritate)
R(estitutae\ F L A R V N T N(onius) S(ulpicius) I I V I R © QSmiquennales).
Pella must have been founded after the government o f Brutus, since a Greek series
6
withTTEAAAI63N5 is contemporary w i t h Thessalonican issues struck after his death.
As at colonia Philippi, the first foundation which these coins imply must have been the
work o f Antony after the batde o f that name. Colonia Philippi, which commemorates
the batde, is unlikely to have been planned b y Julius, and was therefore probably a
colonia Antonia; Pella may equally have been i n this category, or may have been one o f
the Julian colonies which the regime o f Brutus did not have time to carry out,? and so
plain lulia. The date o f the foundation can be deduced from the subsequent coinage o f
the city.
8
This stands i n no less need o f a reconsideration. Imhoof-Blumer, followed b y
Gaebler, rightly attributes here the tridenominational issues o f two further Augustan
colleges:
(1) As. I M P . C A E S A R I A V G V S T O I X . COS. his laureate head to r i g h t — M .
0 10
F I C T O R I . M . S E P T V M I . I I V I R . Q V I N . i n wreath.
Semis. PACIS head o f Peace to r i g h t — M . F I C T O R I V S M . SEPTVMIVS
I I V I R . Q V I N . colonist ploughing to r i g h t . "
Quadrans. M . F I C T O R I V S I I V I R Q V I . town walls w i t h six towers—M.
SEPTIMIVS I I V I R Q V I N . Amazon shield ( P i . I X , 19)."
1
Quadrans. same inscriptions. Praefericulum—strigiles. *
1
28. Cf. below, p. 293. of Sinope and the present city, where a Finite
a
First by Wolfflin, SB. Munchen, 1886, p. 267: sentence extends from obverse to reverse.
accepted by D . M. Robinson, AJP. XLVII, 1926, * Gaebler, NG. 111, 2, p. 96. 19.
p. 17; and Weber, Princeps, 1, p. 252* n. 672. Ibid. p. 121.
6

3
Cf. Pais, Museo italiano di antichitd classica, 7 This is preferred by Dorsch, De civitatis
i, 1885, p. 39; CIL. in, 1443, etc. romanae...propagation, Diss. Breslau, 1886, p. 14.
4
The omission of pellets between words is not 8
MG.p. 88.
unknown (it occurs even on this coin, between 9 For die gens vide Schulze, pp. 108, 332.
C O L O N I A E and PELLENSIS, and CAES(aw) C . Fictorius C . L . Moschus appears at Tibur
and k(uctoritate)): but except at Emporiae, where a (Ephemeris epigraphica, ix, 1913, no. 915).
special ornamental custom inserts a dot between 1 0
Gaebler, l.c p. 96. 23; BM, Berlin,
every letter (p. 154), there is no example of their " Ibid. 24; BM.
random and otiose insertion, which would defeat " Ibid. 25; BM, Berlin,
1 3
the object of facilitating interpretation. This facilita- In trade,
don is particularly necessary on coins such as those
282 THE ROMAN COLONIES
(2) As. A V G V S T V S I M P . bare head to right—C. H E R E N N I V S L . T I T V C I V S 1

2
I I V I R . Q V I N . i n wreath.
3
Semis, same inscription; horseman to right—as last.
Quadrans. C. H E R E N N I V S I I V I R Q V I N . praefericulum—L. T I T V C I V S
I I V I R Q V I N . strigiles*
The close correspondence i n types shows that these two colleges are o f the same city.
(1) is dated to 25 B . C . : its qidnquenncdes are well suited therefore to follow the inaugural
quinquennales o f col. Pella restituta, Nonius and Sulpicius, to whose asses the present
coins display a marked resemblance o f style and fabric. Since, moreover, the view o f
the city on the semis is peculiarly apt to the highly fortified palace-town o f Pella,*
Imhoof-Blumer's attribution is very well attested.
I t is therefore particularly hard to follow his and Gaebler's ascription to a different
mint ( D i u m ) o f the coinage under Tiberius w i t h C. BAEBIVS P. F., L . R V S T I -
6
CELIVS B A S T E R N A I I V I R . Q V I N Q . D . D . and L . R V S T I C E L I V S C O R D V S
I I V I R Q V I N Q . D . D.7 These resemble the currency o f Pella i n the following
respects: (i) style, thickness and fabric; (ii) both include asses with legend i n several
lines within a wreath, an arrangement strongly reminiscent of the asses o f Fictorius and
Septumius, and Herennius and Titucius; (iii) a quadrans o f C. Baebius P. f. and L .
Rusticelius Basterna shares a rare type o f praefericulum and strigiles, referring to the
8
quinquennalian games, w i t h the quadrantes o f both Pellan magistrates. The coins o f
9
Baebius and Rusticelius are found i n Bulgaria, and are sometimes countermarked
1 0
PEL(Zcz) : such countermarks frequently include the ethnic o f the coins to which they
11
are affixed. N o reason for attribution to D i u m can be discovered except the particu-
12
larly feeble analogy o f D . D . on other coins o f that colony: the formula is, i n fact,
frequent at many cities. These coins o f Tiberius are certainly o f Pella.
They permit two further coins o f the principate o f Augustus to be ascribed to the
same mint. A coin whose patently Macedonian appearance escaped Gaebler's notice
bears the head o f the princeps (with A V G V S T V S ) and on the reverse, round D . D . , the
legend P. BAEBIVS I I V I R Q V I N Q . (Pi. I X , 20). Imhoof-Blumer attributed this
13

also to D i u m , rightly noting that P. Baebius is likely to be the father o f C. Baebius

P. f. who appears on the Tiberian issue just described. I n view o f our conclusion re-
garding the latter, this very argument supports attribution o f the present coinage not to
D i u m but to Pella. Secondly, among the hotch-potch o f coins habitually allotted to
1
From a South Italian family: cf. Schulze, p. 405. 8
Gaebler, l.c 9 Sofia mus.
2
Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 88. 104; Sofia. 1 0
Gaebler, l.c; BM, etc.
Omitted by Gaebler. 1 1
E.g. C. G. I. P. at Parium (p. 246), and coinage
3
Gaebler, l.c. 26; Berlin. of seven Spanish cities countermarked with their
4
Ibid. 27; Munich. 5 Livy XLIV, 46. own ethnic (p. 299).
6
Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 74. 59 ff.; cf. Gaebler, 1 2
Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 74.
1 3
l.c. Dium 3. Copenhagen, BM, Berlin; Imhoof-Blumer, I.e.
7 Ibid. 62 ff.; cf. ibid. 4. no. 57.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 283
Carthago Nova (p. 215) lies one whose east European style particularly revolts against
ascription to that city (which is based solely on the absurd imagination that quin-
1
quennales were peculiar to its coinage ), and whose types are closely connected w i t h
those o f an Augustan coin o f Philippi: Victory appears i n the same guise on both, and
on both reverses are standards—three at Philippi, two on the present coin (Pi. V I I I ,
28). This, therefore, is likely to be Macedonian, but the different number o f standards
2

alludes to different circumstances o f settlement, and confirms the indication o f the

spectrograph3 that Philippi is not the mint. The magistrates are C. A Q V I N V S M E L A
I I V I R Q V I N . and P. BAEBIVS P O L L I O H V I R Q V I N . The latter o f these is
readily identifiable w i t h P. Baebius, the father o f Caius, o f Pella, and this must be the
mint o f the coin. A fifth and last college o f moneyers at Pella may be inferred from an
unpublished piece whose figure o f Victory is identical to that on the last-mentioned
4
pieces. The reverse legend is illegible, but on the obverse is A G R I P P A , with
the head o f Agrippa Postumus as a child (Pi. I X , 17).
The chronology o f the mint can be deduced from the coins o f M . Fictorius and M .
Septumius, which are dated to 25 B.C. (COS. I X . ) . Thus the restitutio o f the colony
under Nonius and Sulpicius must be assigned to 30 B.C. From their quinquennalian
title, it can be inferred that the first foundation took place i n 40 or 35, probably the
former; and their date proves that the title o f Augusta subsequently borne by Pella5
is the product o f a later foundation—probably post-Augustan, following the economic
6
collapse o f the colony. C. Herennius and L . Titucius, and C. Aquinus Mela and P.
Baebius Pollio, are likely to belong to 20 and 15 B.C. respectively. Since the issue o f P.
Baebius (alone) derives its portrait-model from the principal series o f C A — A V G V S -
TVS aes, i t falls readily into the next quinquennalian year, 10B.C.: the unknown
college honouring Agrippa Postumus—who is likewise portrayed at Corinth and
Apamea—is plausibly attributable to 5 B.C. Thereafter the coinage ceased, no doubt i n
favour o f the official aes, imitated b y P. Baebius, which was designed for these regions.
Even so, Pella, as the present survey has revealed its issues, stands alone as a mint
of some importance among cities whose mintages were isolated and entirely com-
memorative.
1
Heiss, p. 274. 5
Cf. Ulpian, De Censibus, 1.
2
BM, etc., var. at Cambridge: Heiss, l.c. 8. 6
Vide Lucian, Alex. 6; Dorsch, De civitatis
3
Spectrogram 65; cf. Philippi, Spectrogram 64. romanae apud Graecos propagatione, Diss. Breslau,
4
Paris ('uncertain'). 1886, p. 15.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES

17. I T A L Y : Paestum

There remains only Paestum, whose career as a municipium has been discussed
(pp. 200 ff.). As a colony i t coins under four colleges before the end o f our period:
(6) L . Ve. Ne., D . Fad. Epul. ded. (Pi. V I I , 14). 1

(7) Q. Tre. Ilvir (Pi. V I I , n ) . 2

(8) L . Suei., M . N u n . Ilvir ( P i . V I I ,

(9) M . I . Ne. L a. m.f. (Pi. V I I , 15)/
(6) and (7) are distinguished from their municipal predecessors by a sharp decline i n
weight, being based on asses o f c. 73-77 grains only (p. 202). This decline demands
attribution to the late thirties or early twenties—which is confirmed by the very close
correspondence o f Victory on (7), w i t h her distinctive coiffure, to a bust on official
denarii struck between c. 36 and 29 B.C.5 (8) and (9) are decisively set apart from these
by the absence both o f PAE(sti) and o f the large value-mark S(emis)—never omitted
by previous colleges, but never to return on later issues—and by the first appearance
6
of the formula P. S. S. C , likewise never again absent.
(6) must, for several reasons, be considered the foundation-issue of the new colony,
to whose origin i n about this period an inscription bears witness (p. 201 ).7 The last
word o f the legend cannot be other than DED(uxerunt): unlike DED(erunt)—for
which no analogy can be offered—such a word and such an abbreviation are entirely
8
regular. Epigraphically speaking, then, reference to deductio is highly probable.
Secondly, the Liber Coloniarum shows that, during the two decades of military govern-
ment and later, certain of the colonial foundations i n Italy (as opposed to the provinces)
were not carried out i n the usual way b y the autocrats and principes themselves or b y a
single representative (pp. 8 f.), but, as i n the earlier part o f the century, b y collegiate
0 10
bodies. I t is possible to cite, among several, A n t i u m and Anagnia (popuius deduxit\
1
BMC. 63 ff., Berlin, Cambridge. The reading S.S.C. (Berlin, own collection), PAES. S. S. C. (in
D E D . of Garrucci (Le monete dell* Italia antica, pi. trade, Naples).
C X X I I I , 39) is confirmed by several specimens 7 I is ignored by Hollaender, Dissertationes
t

at Berlin (pace Lenormant, La monnaie dans philological Halenses, iv, 1880, pp. 353 ff.
VAntujuiti, ill, p. 229). Trientes have L . V E . NE. « E.g. at Cassandrea is UORT(ensius) COL(O/M-
FAD. P O N T . (Berlin) (see p. 287). am) DED(uxit), at Dyrrhachium Q. PA[QVTVS
2
BMC 54, Berlin. Garrucci, Lc. 25. RVF(w)] DEDVX(rV>-COLONIA[M], at Phi-
3 Berlin, Vienna; cf. Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 53. lippi Q. PAQVTVS RVF(us) LEG(atus) C(ploniam)
Wrongly ascribed by Muensterberg (Beamten- D(eduxit), at Sinope almost certainly COL(oniam)
namen, ss.w.) to Tiberius. Not in Garrucci, l.c. . . .P. SVLP(r«W) Q. F.. R V F ( W J ) PROCOS.
* Garrucci, l.c. pi. C X X I I I , 14. Misread by P O N T l F E [ X \UV(erator) DE]D(a*zV), at Lystra
Poole, BMC. 77. very probably M. RVT1LVS P R O COS. C O L .
5 BMC. Imp. Aug. 615. This style of hairdressing IVL. [DED(uxit)].
was only fashionable for a short time; cf. Stephan, 9 Liber Coloniarum, Feldm. p. 229.
PW. Suppl. vi, 91. " Ibid. p. 230.
6
Rarely altered to S.P.S.C. (Naples), PAE.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 285
1
and Sutrium {colonia.. .ab oppidanis est deductd). Since such details are generally
7 2
reliable i n the Liber Coloniarum, i t is necessary to ask what sort o f Boards actually
performed the deductio i n each case. Answers o f more than one kind are provided b y
the same work. A n Augustan deductio at Venafrum is b y quinqueviri:* at Capua under
4
Octavian there are twenty—iussu imperatoris Caesaris a vigintiviris est deducta J
6
It is clear, then, that, until the principate o f Tiberius at least, colonial foundations i n
Italy were carried out not only b y individuals, but by committees o f varying sizes.
Also relevant to the present coinage is the ritus deductionis, whose most important
7
feature was the demarcation o f a wall. I t is, therefore, not surprising that, i n the Liber
Coloniarum, the word deducta is often not merely amplified but actually replaced b y
muro ductal or munita? I n these contexts, i n the official terminology employed i n the
work, muro ducta and munita are indiscriminately used as precise equivalents o f
deducta. I n the light o f this conclusion, i t is necessary to study an inscription o f
Venafrum i n honour o f L . Aclutius L . f. Ter. Gallus, duovir urbis moeniundae bis (?),
praefectus iure deicundo bis (?), duovir iure deicundo, tr. mil. legionis primae, tr. militum
10
legionis secundae Sabinae. Jullian," although at fault i n considering thepraefectura here
mentioned to be a Roman office rather than the local one to which the words iure
deicundo clearly ascribe i t , " correctly sees that the inscription refers to the period
43-27 B.C. —there is no reason to attribute i t , w i t h Mommsen, to 42 B.C.—and to
13 14

a refou idation before the Augustan one. The connection between duovir urbis moeni-
undae and colonia munita, as the frequent substitute for deducta, is unmistakable. A t
1
Venafrum, then—which is known to have been colonia Julia Augusta *—the Augustan
restitutio was carried out by special quinqueviru but the triumviral (Julian) one by
special duoviri.
1
Ibid. p. 217; cf. Pais, Memorie delta R. Ac. dei Liguris Baebianus et Cornelianus).
Lincei (sc.-mor.), VI, 2, 1926, p. 369. 9 Ibid. p. 233 (Castrimonium, Cadatia), p. 234
2
Cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 587 n. 6. (Gabii).
3
Liber Coloniarum, l.c. p. 239. Pais, l.c. p. 387, 10
CIL. x, 4876 ( =Inscr. Reg. Neap. 4627).
righdy attributes this to Augustus. Quinqueviri are 11
TP. p. 29.
i a
also appointed for an adsignatio at Praeneste (Liber He confuses the praef. i. d. with the praef. col.
Coloniarum, l.c. p. 236). ded. owing to ignorance of the coins of Clovius and
4
His titulature was correctly Imp. Caesar, Hortensius, and misinterpretation of the inscription
whereas the dictator's had never been (p. 415). For of Memmius(p. 10). He himself admits that it was
an earlier foundation in 59 B . C cf. Pais, l.c. p. 360; not uncommon for a deductor to become the first
Zumpt, Commenta Epigraphica, I , p. 300. duovir i. d. (p. 29, cf. Cic. in Pisonem, 11. 24, pro
5
Liber Coloniarum, l.c. p. 231. Sestio, 8. 19).
1 3
6
Anagnia is of that date. By the analogy of similar * city-governors' at
7
Cf. Marquardt, St.V. 1, pp. 457 f.; Rudorff, Saguntum and Zama Regia (pp. 163, 184), Aclutius
Gromatische Institutionen (Feldm. 11), pp. 229 ff.is most convincingly ascribed to the period between
Details in Hyginus, De Liminbus Constituendis, Actium and the restitutio reipublicae.
passim. 14
Zeitsckrift fur geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft,
8
Liber Coloniarum, l.c. p. 237 (Sinuessa), p. 239 xv, 1848, p. 290.
(Verulae), p. 240 (Camerinum), p. 235 (Neapolis, x
5 Cf. Pais, l.c. p. 387.
286 THE ROMAN COLONIES
This too was the position o f L . Ve. Ne. and D . Fad. Epul. at Paestum—a con-
clusion to which the letters D E D . are most appropriate. The Venafrum inscription
strongly suggests the identification o f such duoviri col. ded. with the deductor and
curator-adsignator, who were now habitually charged w i t h such foundations, and
whose names, indeed, appeared i n c. 40 B.C. on two contemporary and parallel i n -
auguratory issues at Cephaloedium (p. 193). The earlier BIS i n this inscription—if
1
correct —recalls that these two officials were customarily responsible for the local
2
government until the first duoviri i. d. were ready, and, indeed, often acted i n that
3
capacity themselves. When, as at Venafrum, the city had already been o f Roman
status previously, the deductor and adsignator—when these were two i n number and
4
not more or less —simply became interlopers i n the normal list o f duoviri i. d., from
whom they were, de facto though not de iure, indistinguishable as regards matters o f
ordinary administration. I f the tenure o f Aclutius Gallus as duovir col. ded. was re-
newed, as the inscription may indicate, this merely shows that, as at Apamea (p. 257),
the period between the lex o f the colony and its final establishment overlapped the
magisterial year. Even after this termination o f his renewed commission coloniae
deducendae, Aclutius was appointed as a member o f the first real colonial duoviri
(i. d.): the coins o f Halaesa (p. 196) and Thermae (?) (p. 238) have shown that these
were often chosen by Augustus himself, as by Julius before him.5 A t Saguntum the
curator mun. const. Cn. Libo stayed on as praefectus Augusti, and at Zama Regia P.
Sittius likewise remained i n office as quattuorvir (pp. 163, 184).
L . Ve. Ne. and D . Fad. EpuL, at Paestum, now take shape as the deductor and adsignator
respectively; that is, as foundation-officials who possessed the right to administer the
new colony—as duoviri urbis moeniundae or coloniae deducendae—until their task o f
reorganisation was ended. Numismatic evidence has shown that they held this appoint-
ment at some date between 36 and 25: the feeble style o f their coins and the Republican
6
denomination o f triens suggest a date nearer to the earlier (municipal) group rather
than to later categories, which possess other distinguishing features. Both personages
are wholly unidentifiable. The deductor, i f V E N E . is part o f his nomen, might belong to
several gentesJ O f these perhaps Veneria is the least unlikely, since this family came
8
from the neighbouring city o f Pompeii. But neither this nor any o f the other clans
whose names begin w i t h these letters were, as far as we are acquainted w i t h them,
eminent enough to warrant the present official appointment: V E N E . more probably

1
Cf. CIL., Jullian, l.c. for divergent interpreta- 6
Berlin.
tions. 7
E.g. Venecia (Schulze, p. 69), Venedia (ibid.
2
Marquardt, l.c. p. 458; Jullian, l.c. p. 379), Veneia (ibid. p. 378), Veneilia (ibid. p. 445)
3
Jullian, l.c. pp. 28 f.; cf. Cic. Pis., Sest., li.cc. = PVenelia (ibid.), Veneria (ibid. p. 482), Veneteia
4
For their possible occasional combination in one (ibid. p. 434) = ? Venetia (ibid.).
person cf. Hardy, Three Spanish Charters, p. 43 n. 88. 8
Schon, ap. Nissen, Pompeianische Studien,
5 Lex Coloniae Genetivae Iuliae, ch. 125; cf. p. 218; Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 89.
Adcock, CAH. ix, p. 709.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 287
1
includes parts both o f nomen and o f cognomen. Equally unavailing is the attempt to
find Dec. Fadius, whether among the Septemviri Epulonum or elsewhere. Fasti o f the
2
priestly college do not know h i m . He may, as adsignator, have been one o f the pro-
4
fessional surveyors who were employed after the death o f Julius 3 for the first time.
The situation is complicated by the legends on the triens (which must be struck by the
same pair 5), L . V E . N E . — F A D . P O N T . U n t i l the third century A . D . no man is known to
6
have been simultaneously a member o f two o f the great priestly colleges. Fadius,
then, can scarcely have held both septemviratus and pontificatus at the time o f his
deductio; even more improbable is a change from one to the other during his year or
two as duovir col. ded. I t is necessary to conclude that PONT(£/e#) is here used loosely
(and flatteringly) to denote membership o f the septemviral college, which was a
7
dependant o f the pontificate. A t all events, the two officials who collaborated i n the
deductio o f Paestum at some date between c. 36 and 25 B.C. are unknown to history and
to prosopography.
After this inauguratory issue only the three collegia, (7)-(9), strike before the acces-
8
sion o f Tiberius. I t has been mentioned that the first two o f these are o f low weights
suggesting (like their styles) a date after the mid-thirties (p. 202); but (8) provides the
first instance o f the new formula P(aesti) S(ignatum) S(enatus) C(onsulto)—referring
to the Roman senate? like S(enatus) S(ententid) many years earlier (p. 203)—which
appears on all subsequent issues. Chronological indications combine w i t h general
probability to suggest that the reappearance o f the senatorial formula after so long an
interval is due to the administrative reform o f 28-27, which established the senatus
consultum as the basis o f the new executive system (p. 445). Elsewhere, indeed, the
earliest known o f its many occurrences on the aes coinage is provided b y the restitutio
coinage o f Apamea i n 27 (p. 257). The previous rigime o f imperium maius is unlikely
to have warranted the formula P. S. S. C. (p. 203), which is a characteristic and invariable
feature o f the known Paestan issues i n the principate. O n general as on particular
grounds, the constitutional reform o f 28-27 must inevitably be considered as the
1
This does not assist identification. the only other occurrence being at Sinope (see above,
2
Not in Bardt, Jahresbericht des k. Wilhelms p. 252)—make this inevitable.
Gymnasium in Berlin, XI, 1871, 1 ff.; Howe, Fasti 6
Howe, l.c. p. 20.
Sacerdotum, etc. (1904); Klose, Romische Priester- 7
Cic. Har. Resp. 21, etc.; cf. Klotz, PW. (iR.),
fasten (Diss. Breslau, 1910).
M53-
3
Cic. XI Phil. 5; cf. Rudorff, Feldm. 11, p. 321; 8
The earliest coins to bear his head appear to be
Schulten, PW. vn, 1887, 1891.
those signed by M. Egnatius Q. Octavius Hviri.
4
Pseudo-Boethius, Demonstratio Artis Geo-
There are at least five variants (Paris [2], Vienna,
metricae, Feldm. I, p. 395, attributes the institution
Berlin, Naples); many of these have late Augustan
to Julius: but for the uncertainty of the Gromatic
heads, but some (Berlin, etc.) unmistakably display
ascriptions to him, see p. 252.
the mature features of Tiberius. It is indicated
5
General probability, a close correspondence in elsewhere (pp. 328,463) that a very large number of
style, the name of L. Ve. Ne., and the rare mention portraits of the late Augustan type are posthumous.
of any Roman priesthood on inauguratory issues— 9 Milne, The Development of Roman Coinage, p. 22.
288 THE ROMAN COLONIES
terminus post quern o f this formula. (7), therefore, on which—as on no subsequent
issue—it is still omitted, must be considered to be prior to this reform, but, as its style
indicates, later than the deductio issue o f L . Ve. Ne. and D . Fad. Epul., whose chrono-
logical limits can accordingly be narrowed down from c. 36-27 to c. 36-28.
Q. Tre. Hvir, then, coined shortly before c. 28, and L . Suei. M . N u n . Hviri between
that year and c. 23. Between the dates o f the two issues, the senate regained the right
to direct the Paestan coinage b y ' decrees' (p. 293), which, although i n law still advisory
senatus sententiae, had exchanged that name for senatus consulta, and became de facto
legislative (p. 98). As Mommsen notes, the Paestan mint is still i n the curious
1

position o f semi-independence which i t had enjoyed i n the Republic. Its coinage

under Augustus is, however, sparse indeed. The only issue which can belong to his
mature principate is that o f M . I . NE. I . A . M . F. (9). Its weight (c. 65 grains) shows a
2
decided increase, which is subsequently maintained. Official quadrantes weighed c.
48 grains and were o f copper: since the present coin,5 like later Paestan issues,
3 4 6

retains the Republican alloy o f lead and t i n , which was valued below copper (p. 300),
it is probable that i t — n o t (8), whose weight closely connects i t w i t h preceding issues
7
—should be considered a quadrans, the first o f a series. Rome periodically issued this
small denomination, but the large number o f halved and quartered asses found i n all
8
regions indicates that the supply o f semisses and quadrantes was still far exceeded by
9
the demand. Moreover, imitations o f Roman aes which have come to light i n Campania
reveal that the enormous circulation o f that currency (pp. 92 f.) did not prevent a dearth
10
o f i t quite near the capital. Industry was unusually extensive i n Campania, but i t is
difficult to see w h y a city so far south as Paestum was chosen to provide an auxiliary
mint. A t all events, i t was chosen—and bears witness to the invariable readiness o f the
Roman government to sacrifice uniformity to expediency. The last half-decade B.C.,
when no aes seems to have been struck at Rome," is particularly suitable for the present
issue (9): the style o f hairdressing is i n accordance w i t h this attribution. 12

Parallels from the C A coinage (p. 108) suggest that the senatus consultum, which
1
M{w. p. 338: aus Regierungsconcession und far from appropriate to this interpretation. How-
Delegation. ever, it is unlikely that the weights of these lowest
2
The average of twenty Tiberian pieces provides token denominations are of much importance (cf.
approximately the same figure. Mattingly, l.c. p. xlix).
3 Cf. Mattingly, BMC Imp. p. lvi. 8
Cf. Strack, BJ. cvm, 1902, pp. 1 ff. for details.
4 9
Ibid. p. xlix. Several of Augustus and Tiberius from finds
5 Spectrogram 68. at Salerno acquired by me.
6
Spectrogram 69. 1 0
Cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH. pp. 69 ff.
7
Official semisses of Lugdunum (BMC. Imp. Cf. Mattingly, l.c. pp. xcviii, 50.
1 1

Aug. 568 f., 577 f., 588 f.) weighing c. 71 grains 1 2

BMC. Imp. Aug. 104 (13 B . C ) is close. For an
(ibid. p. vi) are too heavy, since their metal is ori- enlargement vide Pietrangeli, Civiltd Romana, VH,
chalcum, which was rated far higher. On the other 1938, p. 19. Unfortunately the official currency
hand the weight of orichalcum Gallic quadrantes provides no female coiffure of the following twenty
(see above, p. 124; Spectrograms 24, 25; weight years: but a Hague cameo of Livia (Pietrangeli, 1-c*
from 36 grains, BMC. Imp. Aug. 561 ff.) is not p. 18) probably belongs to the period.
 THE ROMAN COLONIES 289
permitted the Paestan issue, was moved by the auctoritas principis. The mysterious
1
obverse legend seems to confirm this conclusion. Poole's interpretation o f the legend
as M O N E T A M . F. is, unfortunately, wishful thinking: the first stop is as clear as the
second, and many specimens reveal clearly that M I N E I A . M . F. is correct. The best
interpretation requires a division o f these letters into three groups—the last pro-
viding M(onetam) YQavit) or F(eaV), and the first a proper name M . I . N E . There
remains the formula I . A . , which has been seen to occur, i n reversed order, at Philippi
(p. 274). There the solution A(ntom) l(ussu) is recognised to be correct: here l(ussu)
2
A(ugusti)—a more frequent order —is the obvious choice. This interpretation is
strikingly corroborated b y analogies. C(aesaris) A(uctoritate) and S(enatus) C(pnsulto)
co-operate significantly i n the production o f official coinage, and were bound by a
close constitutional tie (p. 445). I n view, therefore, o f the conjunction o f I A and
SC on this issue, i t is interesting to note that colonial foundations by the authority o f
the princeps are indiscriminately described, from an early date, as Caesaris auctoritate
(as at Pella) and iussu Augusti (as at Philippi) (pp. 280, 275). Thus iussu Augusti, like
permissu Augusti, was viewed as the rough equivalent o f Caesaris auctoritate (p. 445); 3

so that I A — S C here is similar to C A — S C ; and, accordingly, l(ussu) A(ugusti)—

S(enatus) C(onsulto) is a natural and correct combination which may confidently be
read on these coins. I t is, indeed, very probable that the Paestan mint, unique among
Roman cities b y explicitly recording its dependence on a senatorial decree, employed
the Imperial counter-signature: the official issues w i t h SC had done the same. Thus
a further link is forged i n the chain which connects the senatus consulta w i t h the
auctoritas principis. The psychological distinction between iussu Augusti here, and
permissu Augusti at Baetican towns (p. 220), is entirely i n accordance w i t h the greater
strictness o f State-supervision at Paestum. The identity o f M . I . Ne., who executed
this unusual commission, is undiscoverable: he was probably M . Julius Nepos, related
4
to a somewhat later Tiberius and a much later Lucius5 o f the same names.
Throughout its career, both municipal and colonial, the Paestan mint occupies a
class by itself. O n the one hand i t was 'official', since i t produced coin by the same
formula as the Roman aes: both series, too, are signed by city-magistrates. However,
the Paestan signatures, unlike the Roman, are accompanied and emphasised b y an
ethnic; the circulation—though not confined to the city any more than i n the case o f
other local currencies (p. 298)—was strictly limited; no countermarks appear; and
there is not even the approximate conformity w i t h metrological reforms at Rome which
most official series attain. Moreover, the previous currency o f the city (p. 203) shows that
at an earlier date senatorial control, already in existence, had not prevented the operation
of independent economic machinery: the dislocation o f this under Tiberius coincided
with the cessation o f coinage. O n the whole, then, the series may be defined as local.
1
BMC. (Italy), p. 282, no. 77. the commonest manifestation of CA was, of course,
* Eig. Liber Coloniarum, Feldm. pp. 230 ff. etc. in the motion which produced the SC, although it was
3
It is possible, however, that the iussus Augusti equally potent as a result of or apart from the SC
was exercised, after the SC, direcdy to M. I . Ne.; (p.443). 4
CIL. vi,20149. * Ibid. 1057,1058.
290

Chapter 3
T H E ROMAN C I T I E S AND T H E STATE
A. T H E F O U N D A T I O N COINAGES

T
H E numismatic history o f the period is dominated b y this institution. Nearly
every city which coins does so first to celebrate its establishment i n the Roman
right: the same custom can be traced at Latin cities (pp. 335 ff.), and even many
peregrine communities celebrate their liberation or reconstitutionin this way (pp. 338 ff.).
The arguments by which all the Roman issues o f this type have been identified are
1
largely based on fourteen coinages which explicidy refer to their inauguratory character.
W i t h the assistance o f these i t is easy to multiply the list, since i t is only as foundation
coinages that the large number o f isolated city-issues i n this period can be explained.
The various arguments that have contributed to their identification cannot be repeated
here, but the conclusions are summarised i n Appendix 4.
2
The Sicilian series w i t h the names o f proconsuls, the special portrait-issues,* and
the group w i t h Hviri Augusti* are among those groups which demonstrate that this
glorification might be implied rather than expressed. This indication makes i t necessary
to ask whether many issues, which are signed b y magistrates or w i t h an ethnic i n the
ordinary way, are not in. fact o f this same special character. The isolated issues o f the
colonies o f Brutus and Cassius 5 are clear examples o f such implicit foundation-coinages.
N o w a large proportion o f the cities which explicitly celebrate this occasion do not
coin again throughout our period: i t is therefore significant that eleven cities, which
6
lack explicit foundation-issues, possess equally isolated coinages. N o t one o f these,
moreover, can, at the latest, be more than a few years after the date o f their city's Roman
foundation; and special reasons have been adduced for supposing that most o f them
are actually foundation-issues. The same is probably true o f all eleven.
Yet another sub-division o f this category can be deduced from the consideration that
some o f the explicit foundation-coinages do not stand entirely alone at their mint, but
are followed, before the death o f Augustus, by other currency from the same mint. By
1
Mun. Saguntum, Simitthu (?), Zitha, «>/. Turris 4
Mun. Thuburnica(?), Halaesa, col. Thermae
Libisonis, Lystra, Sinope, Apamea, Cassandrea, Himeraeae(?).
Philippi, Dyrrhachium (two), Pella and Paestum, 5 Rhodes, Cyrene, Melita, Dium; Cassandrea is
and Q. Hortensius praef. col. ded. explicit.
* Mun. Messana, Lilybaeum, Agrigentum, Ha- 6
Mun. Dertosa, Ilerda, Lix, Henna, Agrigentum
luntium, col. Tyndaris, Syracuse, Panormus. (first foundation), Lipara,co/.Arausio(?), Simitthu (?)
3
Mun. Cephaloedium, Saguntum, Zama Regia, (second foundation), Thapsus, Alexandria Troas,
Caralis, Tingis — besides explicit foundation- Patrae. At Turiaso there is an interval of at least
issues. thirty years.
 THE FOUNDATION-COINAGES 291
the analogy o f these, i t is highly probable that at many places, where no explicit
foundation-issue occurs, the first issue o f a more or less extensive colonial or municipal
series may have served to commemorate the enfranchisement o f its city. A t twenty
1
of such towns, for example, there is good reason to believe that the initial coinages
occurred only a very short time after the Roman foundation, and their attribution to
2
that event is confirmed b y the special nomenclature on eight o f them.
3 4
Four o f these nineteen cities share w i t h five others a curious feature which points
to the existence o f yet another branch o f foundation-coinage. A t these mints an initial
issue, which is probably or certainly inauguratory, is succeeded by only one other,
which was made very soon after the first, probably i n the next year—then for the rest
o f the sixty years under review, and indeed i n most cases for evermore,5 there is no
coinage whatever. The second issues, struck so soon after the first, could not possibly
provide for the needs o f the community for l o n g : such meagre supplements to the
official coinage must have been commemorative, and there is evidently some sort o f
connection i n each case w i t h the initial issues. This conclusion is corroborated b y the
coinage o f Saguntum, where an issue commemorating the constitutor is followed a
year later by another i n honour o f his adsignator; a similar pair o f coins occurs at
Cephaloedium. The economic reason for these double issues is provided b y the
Paestan series. This shows clearly that even a fairly prosperous city had no source o f
income by which i t could regularly meet the expenses o f coinage. I t was necessary on
each occasion specially to allocate a tax; and the record o f no less than four different
taxes at Paestum shows that there was no fund which could normally be spared for this
purpose. O n the other hand, there is evidence that foundation-coinages were not
provided by the cities themselves: P. Sittius explicitly announces that he himself met
the cost o f the issue at municipium Simitthu (?) which bore his name and head. I t is
extremely probable that other pre-Augustan deductores and constitutors likewise
produced enough money for the new city to have a fair start, and, i n particular, to
enable it to commemorate numismatically its foundation and its founder. The richer o f
the founders may, like Sittius, have raised this money from their own estate, and thus
won additional glory; but since foundations were sanctioned by a lex and a senatus
consultum, i t is likely that most o f the governors who were allotted these tasks—and all

1
Mun. Emporiae, Panormus (first foundation), Lilybaeum (second foundation), col. Turris Libi-
Assorus,Tingis,co/.Lugdunum,Ilici (first and second sonis, Dyme (the latter a special case). At the
foundations), Celsa, Calagurris, Osca, Turiaso, official mint of Cnossus (?) also, the inaugural issue
Bilbilis, Italica, Emerita, Hippo, Achulla, Parium, of M. Licinius Crassus is very closely followed by
Antioch in Pisidia, Berytus, Corinth, Cnossus. another of L . Lollius (pp. 55 ff.), but then there are
2
Emporiae, Lugdunum, Celsa, Calagurris, Osca, no more. A similar phenomenon occurs at the
Turiaso, Bilbilis, Antioch. peregrine 'free' cities of Oea, Mylasa, etc (pp. 339,
3
Panormus, Assorus, Ilici (second foundation), 342 ff.).
Antioch. 5 Assorus, Cossura, Lilybaeum, Turris Libisonis,
4
Mun. Cossura, Halaesa (first foundation), Dyme. Halaesa only has another foundation-issue.
292 THE R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
o f them i n the principate—were entrusted w i t h a suitable sum b y the aerarium. The
large number of cases i n which a municipium or colony contrives to make a second issue
very shortly after the first, but then none ever again, shows that this sum was often
large enough for the foundation coinage to be repeated by the second pair o f magi-
strates. These issues, then, occupy a special place i n the inauguratory branch o f the
colonial and municipal currency.
I t is now possible to survey the ramifications o f the foundation coinages. Their
exceptional importance is suggested b y the extreme rarity i n all other contexts o f the
terms constitutor and deductor: indeed, the Thesaurus only knows one use o f the latter
1
w o r d i n this sense. O n the whole subject of colonial and municipal foundation there is
very little evidence apart from the coins.* These provide a remarkable wealth o f i n -
9
formation. N o r are their quantity and interest accidental. The princeps character as
conditor plays a vital part i n the publicity of the period (p. 319); he and his predecessors
were always glad that their activity as founders should be advertised; and many ex-
amples have already been cited of the enlistment o f aes coinage in this period as a power-
ful instrument o f propaganda. I t is astonishing that such an important aspect o f the
principate as the foundation-coinage has been so neglected, less than half a dozen o f
the sixty odd examples having been identified. Some o f these issues were struck during
the initial control o f the adsignator, some even before the deductor enabled him to take
charge: others evidently belong to the first, or even a later, year o f regular local
collegia. Despite these variations, a city-ethnic, or formula, or local magistrate's name,
appears on every foundation-coinage; but the names o f founder and adsignator are
frequently omitted. I t is clear, therefore, that although city revenues are not ultimately
responsible for their production, these are city-issues no less than ordinary local
currencies are.
I t is possible to trace a distinct evolution i n official policy concerning foundations.
The decisive change occurs between the inauguratory issues o f Saguntum in 29 (p. 158)
and Apamea i n 27 B . C . (p. 255). C. Calvisius Sabinus can still be called conditor muni-
dpi on the former. But at Apamea i t is already Augustus who is restitutor, although
absent: the proconsul A p . Claudius Pulcher, who was i n charge o f the task, is already
mentioned without any such title. So are all subsequent governors i n a similar situa-
3
tion. The change is not difficult to interpret, i n view o f the conclusions already reached
concerning the new executive machinery o f 27, embodying the senatus consultum
Caesaris auctoritate (p. 445): the relevance o f this reform is explicitly illustrated b y the
reference, on the second coin, to the senatus consultum which ordained the refoundation
o f Apamea. Since the days o f Caesar, such measures had not generally been applied:
the deductores had been the personal representatives o f the various holders o f

1
Donatus, ap. Terent. Adelph. 583. not explicitly as constitutor, but only as patronus
2
Cf. Brugi, Studi Bonfante, 1, p. 365. parens—titles due even to a curator-adsignator (Lex
3
Even Agrippa is honoured at Gades (p. 171) Coloniae Genetivae Iutiae, ch. 97).
 THE FOUNDATION-COINAGES 293
1
imperium maius and had carried out their military orders. Henceforward, however, as
2
Augustus himself—like the coins—informs us (n. 6), foundations i n the provinces
were conducted by his o w n auctoritas; SC at Apamea and Paestum bears witness to the
fact that, for inaugurations as for official coinage, this auctoritas was exercised through
3
the senate. Here again, then, is evidence for the civilian administration o f the new
order: i n the restored Republic, the senatorial proconsuls actually wielded less authority
in this respect than their predecessors i n the military autocracy! Calvisius and the like
had been allowed the titles o f constitutor, deductor etc., since, although subordinated by
4
the imperium maius, they were nevertheless themselves i n possession o f an imperium.
But Pulcher and other 'senatorial* governors are not permitted these titles, since
Augustus is now the deductor: i n his Res Gestae (which is never technically inaccurate5)
6
he himself writes deduxi even o f colonies, i n 'senatorial' provinces, which he could
not have founded i n person.
But the deductio, too, has been altered i n the great constitutional reform: i t is no
longer carried out by imperium, but is a product o f auctoritas, and, as the Apamean
issue shows, o f auctoritas made manifest i n a senatus consultum. The governors, there-
fore, who are i n charge o f the tasks, can clearly no longer act like their predecessors by
imperium. They lack the titles hitherto considered appropriate to foundations i n that
capacity, and their part i n the ceremony has diminished to the level o f the Republican
curatores-adsignatores. Those had been hirelings o f the founder, paid from the sum
allotted to the total expenses b y the aerarium, who had—by a locatio operis without an
imperium—superintended the details o f the allotment and remained i n charge o f civil
matters until local duoviri were ready to take charge (p. 34). I n the provinces, then,
7
this locatio, which survived for Augustus's adsignationes i n Italy, was the task o f
his proconsuls, who did not use their imperium for these ceremonies. Thus further
evidence is obtained o f the abrupt administrative transition from imperium maius to
auctoritas. I t is clear, too, that the restoration o f the Republic included a reform o f
city-foundation policy which contained a potent check on the alleged independence o f
4
the senatorial' governors.
A n important feature o f the same process is the evident repute attained by adsigna-
tores o f the period. Cn. Stati. Libo at Saguntum and A . Ambatus at Zama Regia
(pp. 163, 182) are clearly personages o f great distinction. I t is significant that both o f

1
It is of importance to note that this reform * For different circumstances in Italy, see p. 284.
was instituted in 28 rather than 27: the restored 3
From 31 to 23 Augustus possessed the ius
colony of Apamea still bears the tide lulia, not senatus consulendiby virtue of the consulship (p. 450).
Augusta. But its actual refoundation is decisively 4
Cf. Jullian, TP. p. 28. Cf. pp. 79, 422, 424.
dated by the titulature to 27. Thus we have a unique 5 Cf. Hammond, AJP. 1938, p. 485: its in-
example of an administrative measure whose formal- accuracies are limited to implication,
6
isation and execution fell respectively before and RG. 5.
after the constitutional change of Jan. 27 (see also 7
Hyginus, De Limitibus Constituendis (Feldm.
P- W ) . p. i ) .
7 2
294 THE R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
them remained i n office as local praefecti L d.pro Caesare Hviro after the completion o f
their adsignatio: i n the same way L . Aclutius Gallus stayed on at Venafrum for several
years (p. 285). These extended tenures are evidence for a remarkable institution that
amounts to prolonged * city-governorship'. I t is seen i n its true light b y reference to
the new diminution o f provincial governors' practical authority, which has just been
discussed. Until he was ready (in 27) to vest foundations i n his own hands, the
princeps left them with these governors; but he denuded their authority o f most o f its
meaning by appointing trusted agents as their assistant adsignatores, and elevating the
prestige o f these by plenary and prolonged powers at their respective cities. Thus, until
the exaltation o f his o w n auctoritas i n 27 (p. 445), he had means o f controlling the
policy o f the town-councils through his deputies. I t is noteworthy that the coinages o f
Libo and Ambatus are later than the restitutio rei publicae o f 28-27, whereas their
foundations both preceded i t : the same is true o f the adsignatio o f Apamea b y A p .
Pulcherpro cos. (p. 255), who apes the 'city-governors' by numismatic portrayal i n the
same year as their own. Libo and Ambatus are the last o f their ephemeral but important
class, Pulcher, i n the new era o f the auctoritas principis, the first o f the provincial
governors whose relegation to adsignatio is recorded. The fact that Libo and Ambatus
are commemorated b y coinage at the outset o f this era, which rendered impossible the
9
great local powers which their commissions had entailed, is suggestive o f the princeps
desire to commemorate his helpers who had made the new order possible. Pulcher,
who, as proconsul, initiated the reformed foundation-system at the same date, is
permitted to join his contemporaries on the coinage, but the same honour never again
falls to founder-governors—although, as the foundation-piece Permissu L . Volusi
pro cos. at col. Simitthu (?) (p. 232) suggests, the sanction o f such coinages was left at
the discretion o f the senior proconsuls at least. The coinages i n honour o f C. Calvisius
Sabinus, A p . Pulcher, Cn. Stati. Libo and A . Ambatus are characteristic o f the post-
Actian preparations for the restitutio rei publicae, and indicative o f the contributions
made b y the foundation-coinages to history.
 CONTRIBUTION TO IMPERIAL M O N E T A R Y SYSTEM 295

B. T H E C O N T R I B U T I O N T O T H E I M P E R I A L
M O N E T A R Y S Y S T E M

However flattering the foundation-coinages may have been to the pride o f those con-
cerned, i t is clear that they made none but the most ephemeral contribution to the
currency o f their respective regions. The same is true o f a number o f other mints whose
1 2 3 4
activity is limited to jubilees—the fifth, tenth, twenty-fifth, fiftieth, or hundredth 5
anniversary o f their civitas. Economically negligible also are isolated mintages com-
6 7
memorating a visit o f Augustus, the glorification o f his house, and o f the amici
principis? N o t one o f these coinages could seriously compete w i t h the official aes.
Their appearance is explained b y the formulas PERMISSV A V G V S T I and, on
an equally isolated mintage o f Patrae under Caligula, I N D V L G E N T I A E A V G .
M O N E T A I M P E T R A T A . 9 Like the foundation-issues, these single coinages were
privileges by which a princeps could gain the gratitude o f provincial citizens—per-
quisites o f libertas which did little harm to the Roman treasury. Since Patrae had already
struck one commemorative piece at an earlier date, i t is clear that such favours did
not necessarily, or usually, comprise more than a single issue. There was, therefore, no
danger o f any o f these cities dislocating the economic balance o f its region, even if, as
we may suppose, their commemorative pieces brought i n a little profit b y their vari-
ability i n weight (p. 301). Moreover, such coinage is manifestly not related to com-
mercial needs, since the issues o f many cities o f the first importance, such as Carthage
and Tarraco, are negligible. Nor was there a * general permission to coin* even i n
10
Tarraconensis or among other Roman communities, since a large number o f such
cities—including many o f the most prosperous, even i n provinces where local issues
were most frequent—appear to lack coinage throughout this period." Civitas and
monetary needs alike were irrelevant to the bestowal o f this easily granted favour.
However, the official aes, though universally current, is shown to have been i n -
adequate by the numerous occasions on which governors were called upon to augment
1
Col. Babba. 9 Naples, cf. Regling, WMK. p. 282. Pace
4
Col. Heraclea Pontica. Gabrici, Estratto del Corriere Numismatico, p. 102,
3
Col. Dyrrhachium, Cnossus, Patrae (?); cf. both types are imitated from coins of Caligula, not
civitas libera Leptis Magna. Augustus. Dieudonn6, Milanges numismatiques>
4
Mun. Uselis, col. Cirta, Carthage, Lug- ze sir. 11, p. 138 n. 1, righdy rejects the translation
dunum(?), Lystra; cf. civitas libera Leptis Minor. of Moneta as 'mint' by Mowat, Rn. 1909, p. 111.
5
Col. Babba (time of Nero). 1 0
As Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xxiv n. 2.
6
Col. Romula, Patricia, Traducta, Acci. " E.g. Utica and many colonies in Africa, Ucubi,
7
Col. Tarraco, Apamea, Achulla, Hadrumetum, Astigi, Tucci, Asido(?), Bracara—coins false, cf.
Hippo. Caetano de Bern, Memorias historicas, n, p. viii—
Col. Achulla, Hadrumetum, Hippo. Special Barcino, Libisosa, Salaria, Germe, Cremna, Byllis,
occasions are unidentifiable at Thapsus. etc. Vide Kornemann, passim.
296 T H E R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
it from near at hand (pp. 119 ff.). Augustus indeed rejected the decentralising policy
o f universal uncontrolled co-operation by Roman cities, w i t h all its potentialities o f
abuse; but he was too wise not to see that the treasuries and mints o f many provincial
cities were as well equipped, situated and disposed to distribute coin as the aerarium or
its regional fisci. There is, therefore, a great contrast i n bulk between the various
categories o f commemorative coinage that have so far been summarised, and the out-
put o f some thirty other cities, whose mintages were extensive and regular.
Seven o f these fall i n the Eastern half o f the Empire; i t is impossible not to recognise
a bureaucratic supervision extending beyond mere permission, when i t is considered,
first, that three o f these series—those o f coloniae Buthrotum, Pella and Parium—
lapsed when i t became possible to provide their regions w i t h official aes; secondly,
that all seven o f them—the others are the colonies o f Sinope, Berytus, Cnossus and
Corinth—are spaced throughout the Eastern provinces i n such a way as to obtain the
maximum geographical advantage from each mintage. The network is completed b y
the utilisation o f fourteen peregrine mints (pp. 336 f., 401). The chosen cities were
sufficiently few i n number for correlation with each other and with Rome to be a
1
practical possibility.
I n the West circumstances are somewhat different. Pretentious early coinages at
Tingis and Lugdunum* were no doubt not uncontrolled by the government, but their
life was short. I n Africa Vetus the issues o f Hadrumetum and Hippo are only slightly
more numerous than those o f their Roman neighbours: the bulk o f the coinage is still
peregrine (p. 474). The mint o f Paestum served a special purpose, and its state-control
is proven. Otherwise there is only Spain: and i n this peninsula alone there are as many
prolonged series o f Roman city-coinages as i n the whole o f the rest o f the Empire.
Evidently special considerations were involved. I t is not that the currency o f Spain
was more extensive than o f other provinces, such as Asia and Syria; the unusual feature
is that i t was principally entrusted to Roman citizen communities, and that a vast
peregrine coinage stopped (p. 472). The change was no doubt part o f the general
policy o f depressing peregrini i n favour o f Romans (p. 404): and Spain was the only
region i n which Augustus was lavish o f colonisation (p. 306). The reasons for the
multiplicity o f the Roman mints thus installed i n contrast to arrangements i n the East
are not only political but economic. W e have seen that there can be no question o f a
general permission to the communities; those which coin must have been selected for
special reasons. Nor can these reasons here have been geographical, as i n the East:
none o f the Spanish mints, for example, is i n the commercially important North-
1
This is not the same as the'financial autonomy* official mint, but nearly always had one: this was
emphasised by Liebenam, St. V. p. 296; cf. Sherwin- not fortuitous. The succession was: Arausio ? (coL),
White, p. 139. Nemausus (I A, official), Vienna (Latin; see p. 337)*
3
The carefulness of the princeps* plan is indicated Nemausus (IB, official), Lugdunum (official),
by the fact that, after this issue, South Gaul never Nemausus (II, HI),
had more than one aes currency of Roman city or
 CONTRIBUTION T O IMPERIAL M O N E T A R Y SYSTEM 297
1
Western region, and others are very close to each other i n the Ebro valley. W i t h o u t
regard, then, for geographical distribution, certain cities must have been chosen for
reasons inherent i n themselves. N o w Paestum has shown us the complicated methods
by which city-budgets had to be adapted to the problem o f coinage. Even i n the East,
the geographical plan was guided i n its details by considerations o f local prosperity: no
city coined which could not afford to coin. Spain was much more intensively Roman-
2
ised; it was, moreover, at this time an unprecedentedly active field for commerce, and
contained more colonies and municipia which could show surpluses o f revenue than
3
any other part o f the Empire. I n the East such cities were so irregularly distributed that
it was simplest and most economical for only one central mint i n each region to be
permitted to coin on a large scale; i n Spain, they were close neighbours, and their
trade, when not w i t h Rome, was principally w i t h each other. Their coinages are ex-
4
tensively intermingled i n finds: i t was not necessary to space the cities geographically,
since circulation was so rapid. Here was an efficacious source o f assistance to the
aerarium in its task o f providing aes for the provinces, especially as the most important
6
mines of the Empires—not yet all Imperial property —were far more accessible to the
Spanish cities than to Rome and Lugdunum. Thus several reasons combined to
produce the customary Augustan sacrifice o f uniformity to efficiency (p. 323).
It is now necessary to demonstrate that the principal colonial and municipal coinages
actually circulated i n such a way as to warrant the present explanation. This is abun-
dantly confirmed by finds. Besides its wide circulation i n Nearer Spain, the currency
issued by Tarraconensian cities before A . D . 14 was regularly accepted i n Lusitania,
7 8

10 13
Sardinia,? Gallia Narbonensis and Comata," Rhaetia," Germany, and occasionally
1
Cf. Charlesworth, Trade Routes of the Roman 9 E.g. of Saguntum, from near Sassari: in
Empire, p. 154. Castoldi coll.
2
Cf. Charlesworth, l.c. p. 150; Sutherland, RIS. 1 0
Many at all Provencal museums, especially of
p. 132. Emporiae (e.g. 50 at Narbonne, 7 at Marseille);
3
Cf. van Nostrand, ES. in, pp. 204, 208. finds at Montans (Mimoires de la sociiti archio-
4
E.g. found at Numantia (Schulten, Numantia, logique du midi de la France, ix, 1872, p.
iv, pp. 246 ff.), Elche (Albertini, Bulletin hispanique, 228), S. Bertrand de Comminges (ibid, XVII,
1906, p. 343), Despena Perros (Calvo and Cabre, 1930).
MJSEA. ix [1, 1916], p. 40), Tarragona (Vilar6, 1 1
E.g. of Caesaraugusta, found at Preignan {ZfN.
ibid, cxvi [v, 1930], p. 115), Sagunto (Simancas, xxiv, 1904, Jahresbericht, p. 17); of Emporiae found
ibid, XCII [iv, 1925-6], p. 27). in Franche-Comte" (two at Besancpn mus.). Nine
5
Cf. van Nostrand, ES. in, pp. 158, 162. of this class found at Neuss (Strack, BJ. cxn,
6
Cf. Charlesworth, l.c p. 158. 1904, p. 419); cf. also Windisch (Stuckelberg,
7
The Latin cities also—see p. 335. ZfN. xxn, 1900, pp. 40 ff.), and many at Rennes
Many at Lisbon (cf. Lenzi, Rassegna numis- (Toulmouche, Cat. pp. 97 ff.); J at Vetera (Bonn
matica, v, 1908, p. 34) and Oporto mus.; de Sousa mus.).
1 2
Vilhena coll. (Leite de Vasconcellos, Arquivos da E.g. at Oberhausen (Augsburg mus.).
Universidade de Lisboa, ix, 1923, p. 230), Minas 1 3
E.g. Hofheim bei Taunus (Ritterling, Cat.
de S. Domingos (id. Archeologo Portugues, xxn, p. 100).
1917, p. 120; ibid. 1912, p. 113).
298 THE ROMAN CITIES A N D T H E STATE
1 2
even i n Numidia. Lusitanian issues are found i n Baetica, and Baetican as far as free
3 4
Germany; the coins o f Hippo circulated to the farthest borders o f provincia Africa;
those o f Paestum to Epirus.5 Examples o f the Lugdunese series—like those o f a
peregrine mint at Vienna (p. 337)—occur so frequently i n finds from all parts o f Gaul 6

(and even, probably, as far as Africa 7) that for a short time i t must have been almost
comparable i n scope to the official mint at Nemausus (p. 70). But the Lugdunese
issues bear no official countermarks and were short-lived: there is no reason w h y they
should not have been i n the hands o f local magistrates, like the equally extensive out-
8
put o f Corinth. Coins o f the latter c i t y — o f the principate o f Augustus alone—have
0 10 11
come to light not only at Argos, Stratos i n Acarnania, Thrace and Northern Asia
12 13 14
minor, but even i n Gallia Narbonensis and probably I t a l y ; while those o f Berytus
16
have come to light in Transjordan^ and as far as Pamphylia. Similarly, Augustan coins
1
o f Pella are discovered i n Moesia or Northern Thrace. ? N o r was there any reason w h y
the lesser coinages, o f an inauguratory or honorary character, should not add their
slight weight to the bulk o f currency i n their province, and even outside i t . Thus the
18
coins o f Ilerda are found on the site o f Tarraco, and those o f Turris Libisonis, Uselis,
and Caralis circulated freely i n each other's areas i n Sardinia (pp. 149, 205). A t least,
J
five different foundation-issues were discovered together at Agrigentum; 9 Augustan
20
coins o f Philippi strayed as far as three sites i n I l l y r i c u m , and Antonian o f Troas
21
w i t h i n the modern frontiers o f Greece. Evidence from later periods shows that
colonial and municipal issues retained, throughout the next two centuries o f the
22
principate, this freedom o f circulation based on the natural course o f trade.

1 8
Probably of this category is a find at Ain-el- Their wide scope is seen by Mattingly (BMC.
Hout (Recueil de la Soc. arch, du dep. de Constantine, Imp. p. xxvii).
XL, 1906, p. 97: cf. Constantine mus., ibid, xx, 1880, 9 Waldstein, The Argive Heraeum, p. 358.
p. 147). 1 0
Courby and Picard, Recherches archiologiques a
2
E.g. Cadiz (Cervera and Jimenez-Alfaro, Stratos d'Acarnanie, p. 105.
MJSEA. L V I I [iv, 1922-3], p. 5). 1 1
Sofia mus.
3
E.g. Riedlingen (Nesde, Funde, p. 87; cf. " Several from this region seen in trade at
Bittel, Romisch-germanische Forschungen, vm, 1934, Istanbul and Istanbul-Pera.
p. 34). 1 3
Marseille (Clerc and d'Agnel, Dicouvertes
4
Found at Kef (Bull. arch, du com. 1897, p. 250). archiologiques a Marseille, 1904, p. 98).
5 E.g. at Feniki (Ugolini, Albania antica, 11, 1 4
At Melendugno (?) (Bernardini, Notqie degli
p. 162). Scavi, 1934, p. 197).
6
E.g. at Paris, S. Blaise (Strack, BJ. cvm, 1902, 5 Jerash (Bellinger, NNM. LXXXI, 1938, p. 22).
X

pp. 5, 10); in museums at Vienne (4), Nimes (5), 1 6

Istanbul mus. *7 Sofia mus.
Narbonne, Toulouse; at Haltern, Neuss (Strack, Vilar6, MJSEA. cxvi [v, 1930], p. 115.
1 8

\.c.),Wmdisch(Anzeigerfu>schweizerischeAltertums- *9 Own collection.

kunde, xxxiv, 1932, p. 112, xxxv, 1933, p. 17), 20
SiSak, Novi Banovci and Tulca (Zagreb mus.).
21
Nijmegen (mus.), Bourges (Annuaire de la SociiU Athens mus.
de Numismatique, 111, 1878, p. 377). 22
E.g. coins of Utica found at Soukh-Aras
7 Constantine mus. (Hinglais, Rec. de la Soc. (Cagnat, Klio, ix, 1914, pp. 200 ff.); of Paestum at
arch, du dip. de Constantine, XXXVIII, 1904, p. 21). Corinth (Edwards, Corinth, vi, 1933, pp. 54 ft); °f
 CONTRIBUTION TO IMPERIAL MONETARY SYSTEM 299

Thus, conversely, i t is not surprising to find an extensive variety o f peregrine

1
coinages still current w i t h the rest on enfranchised territory i n I t a l y and on Roman
2 3 4
sites i n the provinces. This is demonstrated b y finds at Tarraco, Saguntum, Gades,
5 6 7 8 10
Arelate, Raurica, Caralis, Agrigentum, Carthage? and C o r i n t h . Later evidence
indicates that this, too, was not a transient phenomenon."
Intercirculation, then, was regular and caused no difficulty. Countermarks o f
12
colonial and municipal ethnics on Spanish city-issues, as elsewhere, are post-Augustan.
The cessation o f local aes i n the West, and the g r o w t h o f Roman bureaucracy, were
to necessitate monetary restrictions that are demonstrably alien to the principate o f
Augustus. N o t only the basic official aes but all other currencies also circulated w i t h -

Tyre at Jerusalem (Annual ofthe Palestine ExplorationMursa (Vjestnik Kt.-Hrvatsk.-slav.-dalm. Arkiva,

Fund, 1927, p. 112) and Jerash (Bellinger, NNM. vn, 1903-4, p. 15), Agrippina (Reusch, Germania,
LXXXI, 1938, pp. 23 f.); of Viminacium at Rixdorf xxn, 1938, p. 169; Krosch, BJ. 11, 1843, p. 75),
(Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaftfur Anthro- Viminacium (Belgrade mus.: Gren, Shifter utgivna
pologic usw. xvn, 1885, p. 26) and Eisenstadt (Fund- av Kungl. humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Upp-
berichte aus Osterreich, 11, 1937, p. 295); of Alex-sala, xxix, 2, p. 49). Countermarks of ILIC(i) and
andria Troas at Corinth (Edwards, l.c.) and Cologne CAL(agurris) (see next note) occur on a coin of
(Reusch, Germania, xxn, 1938, p. 169); of Patrae Segesta (Palermo; Gabrici, p. 166.*87).
at Stratos (Courby and Picard, l.c. p. 106) and 12
There are the following reasons for this con-
Pompeii (Gabrici, Estratto del Corriere numismatico,clusion: (1) Many countermarks are stamped by
p. 102); of Berytus in Yugoslavia (Belgrade mus.: cities on their own coins: CA. I., CAS., CLV.,
Elmer, Cat. 1468-1471; cf. p. iv); of Carthago Nova TVR., GR., M. S., C . PA. (de Saulcy, Melanges
at Maresfield (Lewes mus.); of Dium in Spain (own de Numismatique, I , p. 113 ff.; Hill, passim) and S.
collection); of Cremna at Rhodes (Maiuri and (Alcacer do Sal mus.; Leite de Vasconcellos,
Jacopich, Clara Rhodos, 1, p. 33); of Corinth at Archeologo Portugues, 1896) are found respectively
Tulle (Blanchet, NZ. 1913, p. 194). at Calagurris (Iulia), Cascantum, Clunia, Turiaso,
1
E.g. Massilian with Roman of Augustus and Graccurris, Saguntum, Patricia, and Salacia. It is
Tiberius at Como (Rivista archeologica della pro-difficult to see why this should have been done at a
vincia di Como, 1904, pp. 48 f.), etc. Panormitan date when many of these issues were still being
at Melendugno(?) (Bernardini, Noti^ie degli Scavi, struck, and were accordingly current in the ordinary
1934, p. 197), and Nemi (?) (Bosio, ibid. 1931, p. 293), way. (2) This group has the appearance of uni-
etc.; many at Rome. formity, and thus of contemporaneity. Now the
%
Oliva, MJSEA. LXXXVIII [ V I , 1924-5], pp. 77 f. issues of Cascantum, Clunia, Graccurris do not even
3
Simancas, ibid, xcn [iv, 1925-6], p. 27. begin earlier than Tiberius; those of Saguntum thus
4
Atauri, ibid. [11, 1919], p. 5. countermarked are of him also; while TAR(raco) is
5
Numidian collection. stamped on Commagenian official issues of the
Coin of Athens in Augustan finds (Augsburg same princeps (BMC. Imp. p. xliii). His reign there-
mus.). fore seems to establish a terminus post quern.
7
Spano, l.c. p. 181, confirmed by Castoldi col- (3) Many other similar stamps are demonstrably
lection. post-Augustan, such as those of BAN(aw) on
8
Find seen in Rome. Nero's coins of Babba, C. V. on his imperial issues,
9
Cagnat, I.e. C. A. C. on Tiberian aes (BMC. Imp. pp. xxxii f.).
(4) It has been shown elsewhere that most of the
10
Edwards, I.e.
peregrine coinage found at coloniae Poetovio other principal categories of countermark also be-
(Ptuj mus.: Abramic, Fiihrer durch Poetovio, p. 130),long to the Julio-Claudian epoch (pp. 94, 117).
300 THE ROMAN CITIES A N D T H E STATE
1
out restriction. Those o f certain colonies and municipia were specially encouraged.
These issued money, within the limits o f the general scheme, as they thought fit: at
Carthago Nova, Saguntum, Pella, etc. coinage was at five-yearly intervals coinciding
w i t h the quinquennalian tenures, but elsewhere quinquennales or duoviri coined at
irregular intervals according to local and regional needs.
I t is, at first sight, somewhat astonishing to note that the cities as a general rule
completely ignored the bimetallic reorganisation o f Augustus: the spectrograph re-
2
veals that all types o f colonial coin continued to be composed o f bronze. However,
bronze also remained the medium for certain subsidiary official coinages, and even for
the important and long-lived series at Nemausus. Stranger still is the complete failure
to adhere to any common standard: the as fluctuates wildly from c. 350 to c. 80 grains,
and even at neighbouring Spanish cities, or on consecutive issues o f the same mint,
3
there is no attempt at uniformity. Nevertheless, the evidence o f finds conclusively
shows that all these bronze coinages circulated together w i t h the official orichalcum and
copper. Countermarks on the Sicilian series, and the appointment o f exchange-con-
4
trollers (ctyopocvouoi) by Eastern cities, show that this difficulty was felt. Owing
to the extent o f fluctuations, no attempt to estimate a relationship between bronze on
the one hand, and copper and orichalcum on the other, can be conclusive: but since the
bronze asses o f Nemausus (c. 189 grains) (pp. 70, 114) were official and circulated
widely, the weight o f the Roman copper as (c. 167 grains) (p. 91) makes i t probable
that bronze was officially considered less valuable, not only than orichalcum,* but even
6
than copper. The relation o f the three alloys as bullion cannot be assessed, and i n any
case has little bearing on a fiduciary currency. Augustus could not have grasped so
firmly the principle o f token coinage initiated by Caesar, and have extended i t b y such
careful organisation throughout the Empire, i f every as had to be assessed at a different
value from the rest; i n this case the task o f cVyopccvouoi would have been endless and
intolerable. Nor could his careful provision o f official coinage have been accepted as
wholeheartedly as the finds indicate, i f this had been given unfairly preferential treat-
ment i n relation to other currencies: moreover, the scale would have had to be different
in every case, and the exchange so complicated as to cripple the circulation which caused
trade. Although Sicilian distrust might cause difficulties, i t is clear that the order went
7
forth that, within the broadest limits, one as was as good as another: this was perfectly
logical, since all were of token value. I n this way alone can the variations o f standard be
reconciled. Governors were perhaps expected to approach the Roman standard; the
1
Strack, Auf dem JVege ium nationalpolitischen Zangroniz, MNE. v, 1880, p. 123.
Gymnasium, vi, 1938, p. 20, notes this lack of 3
Cf. Nicodemi, Milan Cat. p. xvi.
economic control. 4
Cf. Jones, GC. pp. 215 ff.
2
Spectrograms 7,14, 23, cf. Caley, MAPS, xi, 5 As M. and S. I , p. 24; pace Burns, l.c. p.
1939, pp. 63 f.—not 'copper', pace Burns, Money 302. Cf. p. 88.
and Monetary Policy in Ancient Times, p. 305. 6
Pace Burns, l.c. p. 305.
Orichalcum comes in under Tiberius, cf. Zobel de With the exception of Egypt (p. 131)^.
7
 C O N T R I B U T I O N T O IMPERIAL M O N E T A R Y SYSTEM 301
chosen colonies were probably allowed to make the profits which their considerable
contribution to the money o f the Empire warranted, so long as their coins remained
heavy enough not to strike at the psychological basis o f a fiduciary currency. Such is
the most probable oudine o f a policy whose monetary results were considerable, but
whose constitutional implications were as great. For an appreciation o f the latter i t is
important to fix the precise point at which the network o f colonial and municipal
currencies was first planned.
302 THE ROMAN CITIES A N D T H E STATE

C. C O L O N I S A T I O N P O L I C I E S O F J U L I U S A N D A U G U S T U S

I t is possible, by the aid o f coins, not only to deduce a number o f ephemeral Republi-
1 2
can and Pompeian settlements, but to add considerably to the most recent lists o f
Julian foundations. Some o f our additions to this category actually date from Caesar's
3
lifetime: and there is good reason to believe that the whole o f this large group o f
communities was, i n its general outline and i n most o f its details, his own. The Sicilian
municipia were enfranchised according to his plan—although this had not openly gone
beyond Latinitas*—and Octavian's extension o f civitas i n Sardinia* was no doubt
part o f the same policy. Here the plan was interrupted b y Sextus; i n the same way,
6
Octavian's Julian colonies i n Africa were a heritage from Caesar which Lepidus had
ignored—although Lepidus, too, had founded certain cities whose epithet Iulia (in
contrast to Munatia at Lugdunum) bears witness to Caesarian origin.? The colonisa-
tion o f Lystra, ultimately founded by a subordinate o f Dolabella, had been part o f
Julius's strategic scheme for his Eastern campaigns: the Pisidian colonies and Ninica
and Germa were left for Augustus to complete, but bear witness by their epithet Iulia
to their inclusion i n the dictator's far-reaching plan. Their establishment was post-
poned for a quarter o f a century; but other Eastern colonies designed by Julius had
only had to wait until after the battle o f Philippi for their completion. Although
Antony could invent acta Caesaris, there are reasons for thinking that all his Eastern
8
colonies (except Philippi itself ) were planned by Caesar. I n the first place, Appian?
explicitly states this o f Lampsacus, whose foundation-issue is uniform with those at the
other cities. Secondly, Dyme may show, by a change from Colonia Iulia to Iulia Antonia
10
—paralleled at Simitthu (?)—that new foundations o f Antony bore the double epithet:
but the other colonies with which we are concerned are plain Iuliae. Thirdly, Caesar"
himself testifies that there were many to whom he had extended the hope, but not the
12
substance, o f citizenship, and A p p i a n shows that at his death there were still many
oiKtaOnCTouevoi—whom Brutus, for all his colonisation programme, did not have
the time to settle, or the inclination to spare from his army. Antony, too, did not
1 8
Melita, Rhodes, Cyrene, Dium, Cassandrea. Commemorative of the victory; cf. Nicopolis
See p. 461. after Actium.
9 BC. v, 137.
2
Panormus, Syracuse, Messana, Cephaloedium,
1 0
Tyndaris. The retention of Iulia even at a colonia Antonia
3
E.g. Corinth, Dyme (?), Sinope; cf. Buthrotum, is probably due to confusion, officially encouraged,
Cirta(?). between genuine and fictitious acta Caesaris (cf.
4
Cf. Cic. An. xiv, 12. 1; Scramuzza, ES. 111, Cic. Att. I.e.; / / Phil. 92, ///, 10, 30, V, 12)—•
facilitated by the demonstrable unfulfilment of many
P- 343-
of the dictator's plans. See pp. 180, 264.
5 Caralis, Uselis, Turris Libisonis.
6
11
Bell. Civ. 11, 21; cf. van Nostrand, ES. W>
Thapsus, Achulla, Lix, Babba.
p. 143. " BC. 11, 139.
7 E.g. Celsa, Hadrumetum, Carthage.
 COLONISATION POLICIES OF JULIUS A N D AUGUSTUS 303
1
disband many o f his troops immediately after P h i l i p p i : but claims o f the civilian
oiKiaOno-oiievoi and o f Caesar's veterans, many o f whom, already discharged, had
heard Brutus's speech after the Ides, could not safely be postponed. Even Brutus had
not ventured to overlook their claims, and even his foundation-policy was merely a
fulfilment o f his murdered enemy's plan. Thus Brutan and Antonian colonies alike, no
less than those o f Octavian, Lepidus and Dolabella, must, to a very great extent, be
considered as the elements o f a vast scheme designed by Caesar himself. The new
numismatic evidence gives credibility to Suetonius's figure o f 80,000 from the urban
2
proletariate alone —besides twenty or thirty thousand veterans already due for dis-
3
charge —whom the dictator planned to settle overseas.
These unknown coinages heighten exceedingly the contrast between the inventor o f
this gigantic plan and all who precede and follow him. Republican theory and practice
4
had viewed with disfavour the extension of the franchise to communities in the provinces.
It is well known that Caesar's wider sympathies (and over-population i n Rome) led
him to abandon this outlook; but the true proportion o f his colonies i n the provinces
to those in Italy can only be discerned by a survey o f the coinages. These have shown,
furthermore, that many and perhaps most o f the Julian municipia—of which, for
example, the newly enfranchised province o f Sicily was composed—must be included
in this vast emigration plan.* The current view o f a few isolated settlements must be
abandoned i n the face o f such evidence: b y the orders o f Julius they were scattered i n
6
large numbers throughout the Empire. Probably many are still to be discovered.
7
Ex-soldiers were mingled w i t h tradesmen and labourers —following the precedent
8
of Alexander —and a real attempt was made to compose each community o f the
constituents which were best suited to its position. Each was, moreover, endowed with
a real civic existence: for example, the year which witnessed the initiation o f the settle-
ments saw also their first local coinages (p. 308), and even local militias were per-
0
mitted where necessary. The portions o f Charters which survive show, like many
10
other indications, that the day o f a single Stadtstaat was done. I t is indeed far from
true to speak o f a deposition o f Rome from her pre-eminence, or o f Italy from her
place outside and above the provinces." But i t was not because these were Rome and
Italy that Caesar maintained their privilege: i t was because they contained the greatest
1
Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 42. (NH. v, 128; cf. also p. 239) or colonia Megara
2
- Suet. Caes. 42.1; cf. Adcock, CAH. ix, p. 710; (NH. iv, n ) , or of Samos (cf. Broughton, ES. iv,
Muttelsee, Untersuchungen iiber die Lex lulia muni- pp. 703 f.).
cipalis, Diss. Freiburg, 1913, p. 54. 7
Adcock, l.c. p. 707; Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 498
3
Adcock, l.c. pp. 706, 710. nn. 31, 32; Stevenson, RPA. p. 126.
4
Cf. Stevenson, CAH. p. 463. 8
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 4.
5
For the other type of Julian municipium, by Lex Coloniae Genetivae luliae, ch. 103.
9

which the native community was enfranchised en 1 0

Cf. Kornemann, QAS. iv, p. 14.
masse, vide Sherwin-White, p. 170. Cf. Adcock, I.e.; Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 494
1 1

6
For example, nothing whatever is known for n. 23; Strack, Auf dem Wege %um nationalpolitischen
or against Pliny's colonia Caesaris dictatoris Pharos Gymnasium, VI, 1938, pp. 11, 12 n. 16.
304 THE ROMAN CJTIES A N D T H E STATE
1
number o f Romans and Italians. These, not the cities o f their origin, were the basis o f
2
the Empire; an^ from their number came a large proportion o f the settlers. This was a
policy even more Roman than that o f the Republic. I t envisaged the expansion o f the
Roman nucleus from the Italian peninsula to the provinces o f the Empire; the cities
3
were designed as bulwarks o f Roman traditionalism. Caesar's outlook was not cos-
4
mopolitan; arbitrary and sometimes brutal confiscations o f peregrine property marked
his allotments.* The intention o f his policy, as illustrated by the sudden appearance
everywhere o f local coins w i t h Latin legend, was to stamp the imprint o f Rome upon
the face o f the Empire. But, for all the intense nationalism implied i n this design,
Caesar was no racial doctrinaire. The records o f the colonies and municipia, and the
prosopographical indications given by their coinages, show clearly that natives who
conformed to the central tenets o f Roman rule and Roman civilisation were admitted
6
to the same privileges as Italians. The centuries which follow even suggest that he was
8
not doctrinaire enough.? Orontes flowed into Tiber, and distant colonies reverted to
the Greek language which surrounds them: 9 i t was only on formal occasions that many
municipia used the Latin tongue at all. But Caesar's scheme was o f characteristic
grandeur; he may have intended to devote a large part o f the remainder o f his life to
the details of'Romanisation' which were necessary to its successful fulfilment. His
life was cut short, and, after a period i n which his designs were not neglected but his
Imperial purpose was not present to unify them, the more limited brain o f Augustus
was embarrassed by the gigantic remains o f a policy which was too ambitious for him.
The bitter experiences brought to a conclusion by Actium did much to enhance this
native caution, and i n particular to inspire a distrust o f the Orient. Thus a geographical
viewpoint was substituted for the outlook o f Caesar, which had known no such bounds.
10
The sympathies o f Augustus were Western and Italian: he had seen enough to believe
11
that Rome could not associate, w i t h dignity and integrity, w i t h the East. Thus, for

1
The latter were now freely admitted to the n. 31; cf. Volkmann, NeueJahrbucherfurAntikeund
senate: cf. Syme, RR. pp. 82, 93. deutsche Bildung, 1, 1938, pp. 16 ff.
2
The suggestion of Kornemann, Philologus, LX, 9 Cf. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus, p. 95;
1901, pp. 417 f., that the colony of Carthage was Scheffer-Boichorst, Mitteilungen des Instituts fSr
composed of natives is unplausible: cf. Rice Holmes, osterreichische Geschichtsforschung, V I , 1885, p.
The Roman Republic, in, p. 322 n. 527.
3
Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den ost- 1 0
Cf. Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 207; Gordon, JRS.
lichen Provinien, p. 146. xxi, 1931, p. 66: repercussions on the arts shown by
4
Cf. Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 564. Snyder, Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, XLII, 1927*
5 E.g. Cic. An. xvi, 16 ff.; cf. Adcock, l.c. p. 711; pp. 113 ff., etc.
Jones, GC. p. 62. 1 1
Cf. Strack, Lc. p. 16, who advances the singular
6
Cf. especially Frank, ES. 1, p. 317; also Syme, theory that Augustus conquered the German and
RR. p. 93, who discusses political appointments. Galatian peoples rather than others because they
7 Cf. Nilsson, Separat ur Hereditas, n, 1921, were racially akin to the heterogeneous peoples of
pp. 372 ff. Italy! A strange deduction from a modern political
8
Material collected by Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 517 grouping.
 COLONISATION POLICIES OF JULIUS A N D AUGUSTUS 305
1
example, his attitude towards Greeks was one o f suspicion, and he abandoned the
2
idea of commercial colonisation —his civilian colonies are exceptional and apparently
3
limited to Italy —and founded no Eastern municipia.* But even i f he was opposed to
the spirit which had inspired the dictator's colonies, the claims o f veterans—which
could not be satisfied w i t h cash alone 5—presented him, throughout his principate,
with problems which i n magnitude and duration far exceeded those that had faced
Julius. They could only be solved by colonisation, o f which they, far more than
6 7
'Romanisation', were the cause. The Res Gestae give an outline o f the method
adopted, and coinage fills the gaps. I t is necessary to add municipium Zitha, colonia
Thapsus and many Spanish colonies to the current list o f his own foundation projects,
but to subtract from i t numerous Eastern coloniae (p. 306). Except i n the special
area of Spain, the number o f his settlements i n half a century, though considerable, is
small indeed i n comparison w i t h Caesar's plans, completed by him and his successors
8
in less than a decade. Moreover, some o f Augustus's colonies were peopled with
0
veterans who had deserted those o f Julius to return to the colours. This parsimony,
imposed by conviction, was not lessened by a new principle o f payment for land (after
10 11
some confiscations following Naulochus and A c t i u m ) . O f this Augustus—id primus
et solus omnium—is rightly proud; but i t cost his treasury two hundred and sixty
12 13
million sesterces. Thus, states Augustus, was provision made, w i t h land or money,
for three hundred thousand veterans. But the soldiery themselves were not so pleased:
as soon as the princeps was dead—after a period o f exceptional inactivity i n their
interests (p. 197) —they complained vociferously o f the intolerable miserliness which
14

had provided some o f them w i t h inferior plots o f land, and failed to provide for the
1
rest at all until they were grey w i t h age. * The limitations o f which they complain are
strikingly illustrated by the hitherto unrecognised group o f Eastern restitutio-coimges
(p. 280). Augustus was unwilling, for political reasons, to increase unnecessarily the
number o f the Caesarian colonies; at the same time, their dissolution would merely
add to his problems. So, by a characteristic compromise, he utilised them for his own
16
settlements and so avoided too open a reversal o f policy. Each restitutio represents
1
Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 175. misleading to speak, like Riccobono (Capitolium,
2
Stevenson, l.c. Last, JRS. xxii, 1932, p. 60, XII, 1937, p. 578), of Augustus's 'intense policy of
shows that, contrary to the opinion of Carcopino, colonisation'.
Points de vue, iv, no relaxation of Augustus's pro- 9
Siculus Flaccus, De Condicionihus Agrorum
Italian policy can be noted towards the end of his (Thulin, Teubner ed., p. 126, correcting text of
principate. Feldm. 1, p. 162).
3
E.g. Brixia, colonia civica; Kornemann, p. 536; Scramuzza, ES. in, p. 346; cf. Jullian, TP. p. 17.
1 0

Sherwin-White, p. 173. Syme, CR. 1938, p. 239; id. RR. p. 285, cf.
1 1

4
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 132. n. 2.
5
Cf. Parker, The Roman Legions, p. 246, etc. " RG. 16. 1 3
RG. 3.
Cf. Jones, GC p. 63. Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 181.
1 4

I - 3, 15, 16, 28.

C h s
Cf. Tac. Ann. 1, 35 ff., 52, etc.
Cf. Cardinali, Augustus (1938), p. 193. It is Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 174 ff.
1 6
3 o6 T H E R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
a new draft o f colonists; no wonder that, by the side o f Julian settlements i n each
1
place, only the uligines pallidum were left, or could be bought.
The discovery that so many Eastern cities date from the forties leads to a remarkable
redistribution o f Augustus's foundations, and one which is entirely i n accordance w i t h
his k n o w n views. Only one single newly planned foundation can now be attributed to
2
him i n established Eastern provinces; and even that, Patrae, was merely a substitute
for an unsuccessful pre-Augustan settlement at Dyme (p. 265)—and so practically
3
another restitutio. Sherwin-White's surprise at the length o f current lists o f Augustus's
Eastern colonies is justified. O n the other hand, a study o f the coinage has revealed
that his new foundations i n the West were far more numerous than has been thought,
and that, i n particular, a huge scheme o f colonisation and municipalisation was under-
taken shortly after Actium, not only in Italy, but i n Spain under Statilius and Calvisius
(pp. 169, 214), and perhaps also i n Africa under Autronius Paetus (p. 184). The i n -
clusion o f municipia—often w i t h fresh drafts (p. 155)—in the Augustan plan for Spain
and Sicily is i n contrast to their complete absence from the East, and suggests a degree
o f conscious Romanisation.
But i f this can be detected, i t was slight. The commercial and cultural motives o f
Caesar were subordinated to the military needs o f the Empire. The coins have demon-
strated that, i n the East, only the new province o f Galatia contained new colonies.
But, except for Antioch, these even lack the inauguratory coinages that were permitted
to regular communities. Like Rhodes, Cyrene, and Melita under Brutus and Cassius,
4
they cannot be considered civilian establishments so much as garrisons. They were
little more, but for their colonial status, than the castella civium Romanorum found i n
Africa.5 N o r do the numerous Western foundations show a different spirit. I n Spain
6
the prime object o f the numerous settlements was to guard a w i l d country. Pseudo-
Boethius? informs us that Augustus's colonies were often heavily fortified, and L u g -
dunum describes itself later as coloniam Romanam et partem exercitus? I n Sicily alone
some attempt may have been made to Romanise a degraded civilisation: but all attempts
0
to repopulate Magna Graecia failed. I n general, i n the West, the first and only con-
10
sideration was the protection o f mistress Italy, and the Italian colonies themselves
were planned primarily for defence." I t is i n this capacity that the military colonies
12
receive the signal honour o f triple mention i n the Res Gestae. I t is not difficult to
sympathise w i t h the soldiers who complained, i n A.D. 14, that they were not allowed

1
Tac. Ann. 1, 17. Tac. Hist. 1, 65; cf. Syme, RR. p. 478 n. 1.
8

2
Berytus (p. 259) is uncertain. 9 Cf. L6crivain, Rev. hist, CLV, 1927, p. 182.
3
P. 174. Ibid.; Syme, RR. pp. 323, 477.
1 0

4 1 1
Ibid. Cf. Saflund, Shifter utgivna av Svenska Insti-
5 Cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 580 n. 60. tutet i Rom, iv, 1, 1934, p. 68.
6
Cf. Ritterling, PW. xn, 1239. " - Kolbe, GGA. 1939, p. 156, criticising
C f

7 Demonstratio Artis Geometricae (Feldm. I, Weber, Princeps, 1, pp. 205 ff.

p. 396).
 COLONISATION POLICIES OF JULIUS A N D AUGUSTUS 307
real retirement into civilian life after their discharge, or even after a subsequent re-
1
servist course w i t h the vexilla.
The contrast w i t h Caesar is obvious. Brutus's attack in 44 B . C . on Caesarian colonisa-
tion studiously ignores the civilian projects. A n immediate benefit o f these was the
2
relief o f over-population i n Rome, but their more grandiose implications cannot be
judged, since they had no time, before the death o f their author, for the expansion and
3
extension which they deserved. Nor was i t an unjustifiable experiment that the most
vigorous o f the Italian soldiers should be made to share ideas—and children—with
peoples who were more civilised than themselves. The cultural viewpoint o f Augustus
may have been safer, and his problems greater; but the mutinies o f A . D . 14 leave little
doubt that his solution, as revealed by the coins, though suitable to the strategic needs
of Rome, Italy and the Empire, was not satisfactory to the masses o f population o f
whom those were composed and who toiled for their upkeep.
1
Cf. Parker, The Roman Legions, p. 246, etc. 7
Cf. Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 494 n. 23.
2
Cf. Adcock, CAH. ix, p. 710.
308 THE ROMAN CITIES A N D T H E STATE

D. B U R E A U C R A T I C P O L I C Y C O N C E R N I N G T H E
R O M A N C I T I E S

So much for the foundations; the next three sections w i l l deal w i t h the policy regarding
the Roman cities once they were founded. The appearance o f Roman city-coinage in
the provinces, coinciding w i t h the multiplication o f the cities themselves, is a significant
moment i n the dawning era i n which a degree o f self-government was encouraged
(p. 401). I t has been shown that foundation-coinages, though paid for out o f the
Roman treasury or a benefactor's purse, were issued b y local authority and local
officials; certain o f them provide clues which make i t possible to determine w i t h some
exactness the date of the innovation. The issue o f municipium Simitthu(?) was later than
the battle o f Thapsus; that o f colonia Sinope was made i n 45. O f the rest that seem to
fall within the same category, municipium Emporiae struck soon after Munda, the
colony at Corinth probably before the dictator's death; nor are these isolated, since
thenceforward there is a rapid increase i n the number o f local coinages. I t is not a
coincidence that Roman communities as far apart as Spain and Achaia, Africa and
Paphlagonia, all coin for the first time, initiating a new economic method, at least
within the same eighteen months, and perhaps almost contemporaneously within the
year 45; nor is i t fortuitous that the same year sees a similar provision b y Clovius for
the new communities o f Cisalpine Gaul (p. 7). These coincidences make i t unlikely that
1
Caesar's municipal reforms did not take the provinces into consideration, and decisively
indicate the existence o f some sort o f general enactment or declaration o f policy—for
which, indeed, political thought was prepared b y Cicero's formulation, probably i n
2
this very year, o f the dual responsibilities o f townsmen: omnibus municipibus duas esse
censeo patrias, unam naturae unam civitatisZ
No subject is so controversial or obscure as the municipal reforms of Julius. Among
4
the most recent writers, A d c o c k and Cary* express doubts whether a single compre-
6
hensive reorganisation took place, rather than a gradual process of evolution. Rudolph,
8
indeed, exaggerates the activity o f the dictator i n this respect;7 but still Stuart Jones
declares: ' T h a t i t was Caesar who took the decisive step which the Republic never
faced, and which converted the city-state into empire, w i l l not be denied', and Sherwin-
White? concludes that he must have aimed at a 'reasonable uniformity o f procedure',
and that i n this respect he was a pioneer. The group o f early coins has the weight o f
1
A.s Sherwin-White, p. 178. 5 JRS. 1937, p. 53, doubting his own conclusions
2
Cf. Teuffel, History of Roman Literature, 1, in JRS. 1929, pp. 116 ff.
p. 292. 6
Stadt und Staat im romischen Italien, especially
3
De Legibus, 11, 2. 5; cf. Sherwin-White, p. pp. 217 ff.
133. 7 Cf. Cary, Sherwin-White, ll.cc, Stuart Jones,
4
CAH ix, pp. 700 f. JRS. 1936, p. 271. 8
L.c. 9 Pp. 144, i75-
 B U R E A U C R A T I C P O L I C Y C O N C E R N I N G R O M A N C I T I E S 309
concrete evidence, which is always exceptionally rare i n a controversy o f this sort:
their narrow temporal and wide geographical limits strongly favour the probability at
least o f some co-ordination o f policy regarding Roman cities, i n the provinces as well
1
as i n Italy, at this time. Moreover, the contemporary development o f official aes
currency illustrates a new recognition o f the economic needs o f the provinces i n which
the new Roman communities lay.
However, even the broadest features o f enactments i n their interests are undis-
2
coverable amid the complications o f the literary and epigraphic evidence. Adcock
shows the danger o f assuming a general lex municipalis from a phrase i n an inscription
3
from Patavium, which is likely to refer to a law o f local application only: a general
law is assumed b y Rudolph,* but the date (47 B . C . ) and clauses which he postulates are
6
based on a single passage o f Cicero 5 which cannot support a generalisation. Again,
8
von Premerstein? has convincingly shown that the Table o f Heraclea embodies a series
of drafts prepared for Caesar i n c. 45 and promulgated after his death (probably i n a
lex satura^): but the fourth law which i t incorporates is not general as has been
10
thought, but refers to Fundi i n particular." The third item i n the Table certainly con-.
cerns the tenure o f city-magistracies, but Adcock points out that 'its position after one
law and before another..... suggests that it is the whole o f Caesar's draft legislation under
this head', and deduces from its contents that Caesar had not passed a general law
concerning colonies and municipia. I n any case, the scope o f this measure was Italian
12 13
only: even the general municipal laws postulated b y H a r d y and Rudolph are not
14
thought by them to include the Roman cities outside Italy. Yet the evidence o f the
coinage strongly suggests the co-ordination o f these.
The vexed question o f general legislation for Roman cities throughout the Empire
depends i n the last resort on the wider problem o f the progress under Caesar i n the
surveying and assessing o f the entire Empire and its populations. I f it could be shown
that such bureaucratic statistics were highly developed b y the dictator, i t would follow
1 16
that there existed at Rome—as later *—a 'corpus o f normal municipal regulations' —
and with i t the centralised policy o f which the coins seem to indicate the beginning.

Sutherland, RIS. p. 129, on other grounds

1
9 Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 144.
remarks that this 'does not lie beyond the bounds 1 0
E.g. by Rudolph, Lc. pp. 176 ff.
of credibility'. " Cf. Adcock, Stuart Jones, Cary, ll.cc.
CAH. ix, p. 700; cf. also Last, JRS. 1938,
2
" Cf. Adcock, Lc.
P- 214; Sherwin-White, p. I4rr ILS. 5406.
3 1 3
Some Problems in Roman History, pp. 261 ff.,
4
L . c ; cf. (most recendy) Cardinali, Augustus etc.
( 93 )> p. 167 (criticised by Last, L c ) .
x 8 1 4
Cf. Mommsen, Ephemeris Epigraphica, ix,

Cf. Cary, Stuart Jones, ll.cc; Strasburger, *S Cf. Hyginus, De Limitibus Constituent
Gnomon, 1937, . £
p p I 9 Q (Feldm. I, pp. 202 f.).
SavZ. XLII, 1922, pp. 45
1
ff. Heidand, Repetita, p. 12; cf. Hirschfeld, St.V.
1 6

ILS. 6085 J Hardy, Six Roman Laws, pp. 149 ff.; p. 471 n. 1.
^eguero, Melanges Cornil, II, pp. 385 ff.
 T H E R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
Unfortunately here the darkness does not lighten, but thickens. The early coinages o f
Emporiae (p. 156), etc., bear witness to the appointment o f the censorial quinquennales
already i n the forties; but since such bodies do not coincide i n date either w i t h each
other or, later, even with the lustra at Rome (p. 164), no central policy can be deduced.
1
A n 'Empire-census' cannot conceivably have been completed at this early date.
These failures to coincide show, incidentally, that even the third law on the Table o f
Heraclea—the only general enactment that has survived criticism—soon became a
2
dead letter, since i t enjoined a correspondence between Roman and municipal censuses.
3 4
Cassiodorus and Isidorus link w i t h census operations their natural concomitant, land-
surveying. Concerning Caesar's interest i n this we have certain statements that are
explicit but from lamentably untrustworthy authorities. Julius Honorius* records an
' Empire-survey', lasting several decades, dating from a senatus consulturn i n the consul-
ships o f Julius Caesar and Antony. He, or the authority from which his information is
6 7
derived, is echoed by Dicuilus and Felix Malleolus, who speak o f a Cosmographia o f
Caesar. Although the details o f these accounts are wholly unplausible, certain modern
8
authorities are justified i n refusing to view this persistent tradition w i t h complete
scepticism. Genuine reports may, for example, be reflected i n the statement o f Pseudo-
0
Boethius that an epistula o f the dictator instituted the profession o f official land-
10
surveyor, and i n the reference by Albertus Magnus to pre-Augustan land-statistics i n
the West. These absurdly late authorities can scarcely be said to illuminate this most
obscure o f problems: but they are at least unanimous i n referring the origins o f the
bureaucratic system back to Julius. Indeed, this was a logical necessity arising from
the multiplication o f communities, and i n no sense a break w i t h the past." I f the plan
12
was s t i l l ' somewhat chaotic', that was the fault not o f Caesar but o f his murderers.
One o f the principal elements i n any such centralisation must have been a co-ordi-
nated policy concerning the Roman cities. The existence o f this under Julius has been
shown to be required by the numismatic evidence: a large number o f Roman com^
munities, and widespread local coinage, suddenly sprang into being i n c. 45. Moreover,
1
Luke ii, 1; Cedrenius, Historia (Bekker, p. 321); 6
De Mensura Orbis Terrae (cf. Petersen, l.c.
Syncellus (Dindorf, pp. 597 f.); Isidorus, Origines, p. 163).
v; Suidas, s.v. AOyoOaTos; Malalas (Dindorf, p. 226); 7
De Nobilitate et Rusticitate (cf. Petersen, l.c.
p. 164).
cf. Orestano, Bollettino delV istituto di diritto romano,
1937, p. 239 n. 2; Ritschl, Rhein. Mus. NF. 1, 1842, 8
E.g. Cantor, l.c. pp. 83, 85; Mullenhoff,
p. 482. Schriften der Universitat %u Kiel aus dem J. 18 56,
* Abbott and Johnson, pp. 294 f. vi, 1, p. 1; Humbert, Daremberg and Saglio, I , 1.
3
Variae in, 52 (emended by Huschke). 166.
4
Origines v (cf. Petersen, Rhein. Mus. NF. vm, 9 Demonstrate Artis Geometricae (Feldm. I ,
1853, p. 188). p. 395; cf. Schulten, PW. vii, 1889).
5 Cosmographia (cf. Ritschl, Rhein. Mus. NF. 1 0
Ed. Ven. p. 101.
1,1842, p. 482). For the identification of this writer 1 1
Sherwin-White, p. 145, emphasises that
with 'Aethicus' or 'Ethnicus', cf. Cantor, Die Caesar's reforms were in accordance with tradition.
romischen Agrimensoren, p. 83, etc. " Ibid. p. 175.
 BUREAUCRATIC POLICY CONCERNING ROMAN CITIES 311
early IVviri at Tingis, praefecti at Celsa, quinquennales at Emporiae, show that the pro-
vincial cities kept abreast w i t h developments nearer home. O n general grounds such
a policy is i n the highest degree probable: the influence o f these communities was
essential for * Romanisation'; they were loaded w i t h privileges (p. 404); and their vast
extension, as revealed by the coinage, was one o f the most progressive and character-
istic o f Caesar's projects. But, since even the broadest features o f a central policy
concerning them cannot now be reconstructed, i t is only possible to say that this
already existed.
Augustus's progress i n the bureaucratic control o f the Roman communities abroad is
slightly better documented, although even this vital topic has been passed over i n
silence by most o f the best-known authorities. Here again the coins are i n the forefront
of the evidence. I n the first place, the Eastern colonies which coined were spaced i n
such a way that a maximum benefit was extracted from each mint (p. 297); this strategic
arrangement must have originated from the central authority. The same conclusion
must be derived from the formulas which refer so many issues to the permission
of Augustus or his representative (pp. 314 ff.), and from the refoundation-coinage
of Apamea which significantly refers to a senatorial decree (p. 255). This measure o f
centralisation indicates that the technical details were i n the hands o f a special secretary
1
or committee. A financial staff o f freedmen is recorded; but those o f them who dealt
with matters of this kind must have been connected, not only w i t h the princeps, but w i t h
the aerarium—since this was the only Roman treasury, and was concerned w i t h every
province alike (p. 97). Although the character o f the bureau which supervised the
finances o f Roman cities is unknown, its existence can be safely deduced from the
numismatic evidence.
The outlines o f the policy by which this department was guided can be partially
sketched by reference to other sources. The reforms o f Augustus distinguish sharply
between Roman communities and those of peregrine rank (p. 404). Provincial censuses 2

(which must be substituted for the fictitious * Empire censuses' [p. 310 n . 1]) do not
3
concern the former, whose members, as Meyer rightly pointed out, are thenceforward
4
included in the Roman censuses; Schulz has recently demonstrated that the Roman
returns were now to include, not only adults, but all the Roman population o f the cities.
Since the incidence o f local quinquennales was ( i n apparent contravention to the third
law in the Table o f Heraclea) not generally adjusted to suit the date o f Roman lustra
(p. 164), it must be concluded that each city merely sent i n its latest quinquennial
returns to the statistical bureau which produced the figures o f the Res Gestae-.* There
was no escape from the notice o f this bureau: newborn children even ofperegrini—and
1
Suet. Aug. 101. LXIV, 1931, pp. 551 ff.; Bell, CAH. x, p. 304),
* E.g. Gaul (Livy, Ep. 134; cf. Kubitschek, PW. etc.
Hi, 1918), Spain (Dio LIII, 22. 5; CIL. vi, 332), 3
Conrad*sches Handworterbuch der Staatswissen-
Syria (Josephus, AJ. xvn, 13. 5; Luke ii, 2), schaften, 11, 1909, p. 908.
3

Egypt (Calderini, Rendiconti del R. 1st. Lombardo, 4

Mnemosyne, 1937, p. 185. 5 8.
312 THE R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
1
a fortiori o f Romans—had to be recorded on birth-certificates, and each new ad-
2
signatio was based on a carefully drawn-up list. I t is, therefore, not surprising that a
3
land-survey including all the property o f Roman (and probably peregrine ) communi-
4
ties was completed by Augustus. The evidence for its completion by him is unanimous,
although the initiator o f the scheme is variously identified. The name o f its technical
director is equally unknown,5 but there is reason to believe that his position i n the
6
State was now established on a new basis. His achievement, at all events, is proved
and illustrated by the resultant Commentarii and Map o f Agrippa.?
The population and property, therefore, o f the inhabitants o f the Roman cities were
now amply documented at Rome; and the record-office dealing w i t h them, o f which
8
Hyginus informs us, was i n process o f evolution. Various Gromatic writers, whose
combined evidence there is no reason to doubt, indicate that this information was put
to effect by special measures o f Augustus for these communities as a whole. Fron-
9
tinus bears witness to an orado by him de statu municipiorum, containing technical
rulings about land-tenure: whether this oratio moved a senatus consultum—as termino-
10
logical accuracy would demand —or was merely one o f the dicta principis whose
auctoritas made i t virtually binding (p. 433) cannot be determined. Equally significant
is the reference o f H y g i n u s " to a lex et constitutio divi Augusti concerning boundary-
walls. Constitutio is an anachronistic expression for the informal dicta principis just
mentioned (p. 432); here, as often, one o f those expressions o f auctoritas was
1
Cf. Sanders, A]A. 1928, pp. 308 ff.; id. Pseudo-Boethius, Demonstratio Artis Geometricae
Aegyptus, 1937, pp. 233 ff.; Cuq, MelangesFournier, (Feldm. 1, p. 402), cf. Ritschl, I.e.: Balbus was a
1929, pp. 119 ff. contemporary of Trajan.
2
Siculus Flaccus, De Condicionibus Agrorum 6
Schulten, PW. vn, 1889, believes that the pro-
(Thulin, Teubner ed. p. 101; cf. Feldm. 1, p. 154): fessional mensores employed by the triumvirs
agri...assignantur viritim nominibus. (possibly Satrius Verus was one of these, Liber
3
Cf. Cumont, JRS. 1934, pp. 187 f., for Syria. Coloniarum [Feldm. 1, p. 244]) and perhaps created
4
E.g. Pliny, NH. m, 46 (Italy); Fragm. Itin. by Julius Caesar (cf. p. 9) were given a military
Ant. ap. Jul. Honorium (Simler ed., p. 295); Jul. standing by the army reforms of Augustus (cf.
Honorius, Cosmographia (Ritschl, Rhein. Mus. Neumann, Klio, xxvi, 1933, p. 362). But in view
NF. I, 1842, p. 486); anon, subscriptor ad Librum of the institution of civilian deductio Caesaris
Coloniarum (MS. Arcerianus, Feldm. 1, p. 239); auctoritate (see above, p. 293) it is unlikely that all
Agennius Urbicus, ap. Frontin. De controversiis Augustan adsignatores were officers.
(Feldm. 1, p. 8); Suidas, s.v. coroypCHpri; Albertus 7
Pliny, NH. m, 2; cf. Stevenson, CAH. x,
Magnus (ed. Ven. p. 101). Cf. Cantor, Die romischen p. 192; Jones, CERP. p. 495.
Agrimensoren, p. 85; Schulten, PW. vn, 1887. 8
De Limitibus Constituendis (Feldm. 1, pp. 202,
For the mensio of Narbonensis, cf. Martianus 203).
Capella, Encyclopaedia vi (Cantor, l.c. p. 199 9 De Controversiis Agrorum I (ibid. p. 18); cf.
n. 163). Pisani, Annali delta R. Scuola Normale Superiore di
5 Mommsen, Die romischen Feldmesser, p. 225;Pisa (lett.-st.-fil.\ ser. 11, vol. vn, 1938, p. 224.
Gensel, PW. 11, 2821; Schulten, ibid, vn, 1887; 1 0
Cf. Pisani, l.c.
Cantor, l.c. p. 64, show that he cannot be identified 1 1
L.c. (Feldm. 1, p. 194); cf. Orestano, Bollettino
with Balbus, as anon, subscriptor ad Libr. Col., I.e.,dell* Istituto di diritto romano, 1937, p. 246.
 BUREAUCRATIC POLICY CONCERNING ROMAN CITIES 313
incorporated i n a lex (p. 433). Hyginus's statement is supported by the allusion by
1
Latinus and Mysrontius to a recensitio by Augustus o f all boundary-stones and the
2
institution o f a new kind called termini AugusteL A third passage o f Hyginus indicates
that the general principles o f adsignatio were also regulated by a lex under Augustus.
These are all measures whose scope is greater than a single community. Since the
operations o f the Roman census now included not only the Italian cities, but Roman
cities abroad, i t is unlikely that these reforms—especially the oratio de statu muni-
cipiorum—were limited to the peninsula: there was no legal distinction between Roman
3
civitates i n Italy and those abroad. A t all events, each o f these enactments is a general
ruling from the department at Rome. Other decrees were framed to comprise all the
Roman citizen-bodies i n a single province: H e i t l a n d V suggestion that directions to
these found their way into measures designed for whole provinces is confirmed b y
Buckland's demonstration that tralatician edicta provinciarum continued without a
break under the early principate,* and were—like their counterparts at home, the
edicta urlana—concerned solely w i t h the citizens i n the provinces to which they
6
referred. These provincial edicts, too, were manifestations o f a central organisation,
through its provincial representative; comparable, i n the financial sphere, are the
coinages and other operations o f provincial branches o f the aerarium (p. 97).
Comprehensive enactments o f these kinds would not have been possible under the
Republic, when the information on which they were based was not accessible. The
coinage is the most important category o f evidence which has enabled the evolutionary
process to be faindy delineated. I t leads to the conclusion that the bureaucratic
organisation necessary for the unified control o f the vital class o f citizen-communities
in the provinces was greatly developed by Augustus, but was begun b y Caesar.
1
De Locis Suburbanis (Feldm. I, p. 348). 5
Rev. hist, du droit francais et Stranger, IV sir.,
%
L.c, (ibid. p. 201). XIII, 1934, p. 88; pace Velsen, SavZ. 1900,
3
Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 180—although Roman pp. 81 ff.
snobbishness still made it difficult for citizens of the 6
Buckland, l.c. p. 91; pace Velsen, l.c; Weiss,
latter to 'get on' outside their cities, ibid.; cf. Studien %u den romischen Rechtsquellen, pp. 71 ff.;
Sutherland, RIS. p. 169. Walton, Introduction to Roman Law, p. 251.
4
Repetita, p. 7 n. 2.
3M THE ROMAN CITIES A N D T H E STATE

E. A D M I N I S T R A T I V E I N T E R F E R E N C E B Y P R O V I N C I A L
O F F I C I A L S

The control thus instituted was augmented by the establishment o f various methods
by which the policies o f individual cities could be influenced and utilised. These
methods can be divided into two groups, comprising their relationships to the pro-
vincial representatives o f the central authority, and to that authority itself.
The first o f these problems is rendered especially difficult by the discovery that very
many o f the numismatic appearances o f governors are to be accounted for b y the
special circumstances o f foundations. But evidence o f an unusual kind can be derived
from official coins discussed i n the first Part (pp. 3 ff.). These were, very often, actually
struck at the local mints o f Roman cities. A n enumeration w i l l establish the value o f
such information. I t is clear from the outset that municipia were not exempt from this
requisition, since Lilybaeum, Panormus and Syracuse (?), where Sex. Pompeius issued
coinage, were apparently cities o f this class. The triumvirs coined at Italian cities, and
Octavian's coinage at municipium Lipara indicates that, for a time at least, he main-
tained a similar practice. After Actium instances multiply, i n East and West. Before
the restitutio rei publicae, an official issue is struck at colonia Apamea celebrating the
capture o f Egypt (?): thereafter, even at the comparatively few mints that are certain,
there are examples at every period from provinces both 'imperial' and 'senatorial',
consular and praetorian. A part o f the main official series was coined at Parium; the
legati P. Carisius and P. Quinctilius Varus commandeer the mints at Emerita and
Berytus respectively; Apamea is again requisitioned by the proconsul M . Granius
Marcellus. Moreover, two distinct methods o f encroachment can be traced. O n the
one hand, proconsular issues from Hadrumetum are shown by great similarities o f die
to originate from the same workshop as the local coinage; on the other, the libertas o f
Lugdunum was infringed by the establishment o f a special official mint w i t h a military
guard. I n both cases coinage was based on the permission and auctoritas o f the
princeps 1 supported by this, his subordinates were evidently permitted to make every
use o f the mints of colonies and municipia. Interventions b y Pliny the Younger are not
applicable to this period; more relevant is the practice o f the Republic, when governors
1
had already exercised a general authority over these cities. The completeness o f
this control at the present period is made particularly clear by the coinage. Corrobora-
tion is obtainable from other sources. Utica and then Carthage, Corinth, Carthago
2
Nova and then Tarraco, are among the proconsular residences o f the period; subordi-
3
nates were established at other colonies such as Hippo. A legatus o f Syria was given
1
Cf. Last, CAH. xi, p. 467; Halgan, Essai sur popularity in commercial circles in the cities: cf.
Vadministration des provinces sdnatoriales, p. 148. Dio Chrysostom xxxv, 15; Jones, GC. p. 263.
2
This encroachment was facilitated by its E.g. CIL. ix, 1592.
3
 I N T E R F E R E N C E BY P R O V I N C I A L OFFICIALS 315
1
first hearing i n the court o f Berytus. Both colonies and municipia paid taxes unless
2
specially exempted. I t is difficult to reconcile these facts w i t h a high degree o f local
independence. Furthermore, the higher jurisdiction o f the conventus, i n so far as
3
these were yet established, was i n the hands o f the governors, and colonies were
included i n these conventus.* The tenure o f a governorship was now accompanied by
eponymy throughout the province,* i n the manner o f the consuls at Rome; this is a
sure sign o f the general supremacy whose details are discovered from the coins.
Consular governors i n Africa and Syria are actually entitled to grant cities their
Permissus to coin (pp. 232, 260).
6
The privilege later called ius Italicum comprised and exceeded immunitas; yet von
Premerstein cannot be right i n including among its advantages complete autonomy
(Selbstverwaltung ohne Oberaufsicht des Statthalterst), since Emerita, Parium, Apamea
8
and Berytus are among cities whom this title does not exempt from requisition for
coinage by their respective governors.? Acci, also iure Italico, is even included i n the
10
conventus o f Carthago N o v a . Nor does the badge o f Marsyas {Liber pater) indicate
freedom i n this respect: i t is found at the two requisitioned cities o f Apamea and
17,
Parium." Servius simply calls this signum.. Jiberae civitatis; the many complicated
13
interpretations that have been g i v e n i l l accord w i t h the heterogeneous list o f colonies
14
and municipia, some very unimportant, at which the badge is found. Since i t is now
clear that each Roman community was libera (p. 225), each was entitled to this symbol,
and the controversy is vain. Moreover, i t is highly probable that at this time the ius

Josephus, AJ. xvi, 368; cf. Volkmann, pp. 141 ff.; Heisterbergk, Philologus, L , 1892,
1

Miinchener Beitr. Papyrusforschung, xxi, 1935, pp. 648 f.; Kornemann, PW. iv, 580 ff.; Premer-
p. 157. sfein, I.e.; Burckhardt, PW. xiv, 1993; Jullian,
Kornemann, PW. xvi, 633 f.
2
Rev. it. anc. 1913, p. 490; Seston, Mil. de VEcole
Cf. Sutherland, RIS. p. 143.
3
francaise de Rome, 1926-7, p. 167. The material has
von Premerstein, PW. x, 1250; Kornemann, recently been carefully collected (with the omission
4

I.e. 634. of Marzullo's doubtfiil Paestan statue) by Paoli,

Mommsen, St.R. 11.1, p. 261.
5
Mil. d'arch. et a"hist, LV, 1938, pp. 98 ff. He admits
von Premerstein, l.c. 1242
6
ff. that 'Marsyas' is linked with civitas (p. 114) and sees
Ibid.; cf. Marquardt, St.V. 1, pp. 90 f.; Last, that most of the cities where he appears are not
7

CAH. xi, p. 455. specified as possessors of ius italicum (p. 122), but
von Premerstein, l.c. 1240, for status.
8
nevertheless falls back on the old view. He has,
9
Marzullo, Am delta Soc. Italiana per il Progresso however, neglected recent literature explaining the
delle Science, v, 1932, Estr. p. 7 n. 1, points out character of libertas. Furthermore, the worship of
similar limitations. Liber pater was so widely diffused in the West (cf.
Pliny, NH. in, 25; von Premerstein, l.c. 1250. Hoeppfner, Bull, de la Fac. des lettres de Strasbourg,
1 0

von Premerstein, l.c. 1251.

11
x, 1931-2, pp. 135 f.) that it is very doubtful
ad Aen. 111, 20; cf. also ibid, iv, 58; Macrobius, whether every 'Marsyas' can be used for the pur-
l a

rs', in, 12. pose of such arguments (p. 316). A complex theory
1 3
For various opinions vide Lenormant, Darem- of Marzullo, I.e., is based on several misconceptions
krg et Saglio, s.v. colonia, p. 1321; cf. Eckhel, DN. (p. 201).
> P- 493J Toutain, Mil. d*arch. xvm, 1898,
Iv 1 4
von Premerstein, l.c. 1251.
316 T H E R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
1
Italicum was the exclusive and invariable concomitant o f Roman status. Servius says
what he means. The rarity o f 'Marsyas' i n Italy, o f which much is sometimes made, is
due to the fact that, where all were o f Roman status and all 'free', the distinctive
2 3
symbol lacked purpose. But this libertas depended upon acquiescence, and the extent
to which this was necessary is made abundantly clear b y the numerous examples o f
requisitioning.
1
Jones, GC. p. 133. Sherwin-White, p. 188 n. 3, * Cf. Jordan, Marsyas auf dem Forum in Rom;
Frank, AJP. XLVIII, 1927, p. 185, deny its confer- Mommsen, StJL 111, pp. 808 ff.
ment on peregrine cities at this date, pace Abbott 3
Cf. Kloesel, Libertas, Diss. Breslau, 1935,
and Johnson, p. 118; Marzullo, l.c. p. 24, cf. p. 9. pp. 14 ff.
 RELATION OF THE CITIES T O AUGUSTUS

F. R E L A T I O N O F T H E C I T I E S T O A U G U S T U S

Thus interference by provincial officials was frequent and universal. But every inter-
ference was i n the last resort answerable to the princeps who represented the entire
Roman state. Moreover, apart from his intermediaries, Augustus himself possessed a
personal relationship w i t h every community: and his position is vital to the thesis
1
that the central government failed to solve the problem o f its relationship to the cities.
As usual, the system o f his supremacy is complex, and lacks the simple decisiveness
which would have destroyed the intended illusion o f independence.
One o f the most important manifestations o f this supremacy was the appearance on
coins o f his portrait. This was not yet, as later, a regular formality. The supposition o f a
special decree permitting this privilege to Caesar is based on a misinterpretation o f D i o
(p. 15), and phrases like kaiserliches Bildnisrecht are at this time meaningless (p. 228);
while a vast array o f exceptions denies the possibility even o f a Geset\esstatt beobachtete
2
Regel. Such bureaucratic institutions are alien to the lack o f uniformity that is
characteristic o f Augustan policy, and the special significance o f portraiture o f the
princeps lies beyond them. Yet i t is true that, at the Roman cities, a few examples o f
portraiture under Antony swell to a multitude under Augustus.
I t is worth noting that even the heads o f the Ptolemies appear on coinage not from a
3
royal right, but merely from feelings o f respect—and thus even outside their realms.
Similar moral elements predominate here. A l l the Roman cities i n the East, and most i n
the West, had a very special obligation to Augustus. Refoundations and foundations
alike entitled him to their patrocinium^ which bound the cities to h i m i n the relation-
ship o f clientela. The officio, for which, i n this capacity, they were morally responsible,
were, i n their origins, very comprehensive;* i n particular, the clients were even within
6
the dicio o f their patronus. I n the last years o f the Republic, indeed, the clientela o f
communities, as o f individuals, had lost many o f its implications; but Julius, by
abolishing the I Hviri coloniis deducendis i n favour o f a more personal method (p. 9),
had concentrated i n his hands the patrocinium o f many new foundations,? and strongly
8
supported clientela as-an institution. Numismatic evidence shows that the lesson was
not lost on the cities. For example, the appearance o f Julius on coins during the princi-
1
Cf. Heitland, Repetita, pp. 5 ff.; Reinhold, CJ. 5 Bernert, De Vi atque Usu Vocabuli Officii,
x
93 > p. 369; Stuart Jones, EUR. 1931, p. 671.
8
Diss. Breslau, pp. 32 f.
z
Kahrstedt, Klio, x, 1910, p. 289. 6
von Premerstein, PW. iv, 38. But Heinze,
3
Cf. Brett, AJA. 1937, pp. 453 ff. Vom Geist, des Romertums, p. 171, shows that this
4
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 19. Hiibner's denial was a question offides,not of law.
(CIL. 11, 5093) that any princeps was patronus of a 7 Cf. Skard, Festskrift til Koht, p. 58.
city is shown not to apply to Augustus by Sebastian, 8
Pro Bithynis prooem. (Gellius, NA. v, 13.
&e patronis etc., Diss. Halle, 1884, p. 12, quoting 6).
CIL. x, 8305.
3 i8 T H E R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
pate is very rare—except at the cities which he founded or freed, where i t is common:
his head and image are engraved at Sinope, Apamea, Alexandria Troas, Lampsacus,
1
Parium, Achulla and Hadrumetum. Equally noteworthy is the appearance o f
Antony at his colony o f Philippi, whereas Julius appears at the contemporary Julio-
Antonian foundations at Lampsacus and Troas. Agrippa's effigy is, at peregrine cities,
no less unusual, but at Gades he is found as PARENS P A T R O N V S , like M . Atius
Balbus at Uselis. I n the same way Augustus is described as PARENS C O L O N I A E on
an inscription from Iader.* A t communities where he planted settlements, his patro-
cinium bound the colonists to him i n a perpetual cliental relationship. Where these had
been Julian or Julio-Antonian before, he appeared, already i n his lifetime, as colleague
to the deified Caesar; a refoundation-issue o f Philippi actually presents them together
in this capacity. Thus the founder received special and scrupulous honour.
But, by an extension o f the idea, every one o f the Roman cities—like peregrine
towns (p. 403), tribes and client-kingdoms—was equally within the patrocinium
3

4
o f Augustus. The patrocinium orbis terrae? Scipio's ideal, was now a political
6
entity. Proculus, i n defining the libertas which each possessed, explicitly states the
cliental principle on which this relationship was based. Even such Roman settlements
as were not Augusta owed their corporate existence to their cliental loyalty to Rome,
and to the princeps who represented its senate and people. Augustus was universal
conditor, just as he was universal KTiorris (p. 356).
Moreover, the significance o f clientela i n general was greatly enhanced just at this
7
period. As an ancient institution o f the Republic, its implications i n private life,
sharply defended by Caesar, were further revived b y Augustus. I n the first place, all
8
the personal procurators o f the princeps were situated i n this relationship to h i m .
Secondly, the new class o f Latini Iuniani, and freedmen i n general, were compelled to
hold their patroni i n profound respect: 9 Horace describes a patronus not as pater only,
10
but as rex. Indeed, the cliental idea played such a vital part i n the politico-social
thought o f the period, that i t can be considered the fundamental institution o f the
principate." Carried away b y this theme, von Premerstein has endeavoured not only
to attribute a legal basis to the tutela which thus devolved upon Augustus (p. 452),"
13
but also to apply the cliental principle to the conditions o f many preceding decades.
A t least four writers have voiced the widespread denial o f the former o f these
1
BM, Vienna: second century A.D. 1937, p. 94.
CIL. in, 2907; cf. 13264.
2 8
Cf. Merkel, Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiet des
3
The Gallic tribes were first clientes of Caesar: romischen Rechts, 111, pp. 42 f.
cf. Syme, RR. p. 292. 9 Cf. Last, CAH. x, p. 431; Kaser, SavZ. 1938,
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 352. For the coniuratio, ibid.
4
p. 119; A. M. Duff, Freedmen in the Early Roman
pp. 288 f. Empire, p. 37.
5 Cic. Off. 11, 27; cf. Skard, l.c. p. 65. 1 0
Ep. 1, 7. 37; cf. Friedlander, Sittengeschichte,
Dig. XLIX, 15. 7; cf. Kloesel, Libertas, Diss.
6
pp. 385 ff.
Breslau, 1935, p. 87. " von Premerstein, passim; cf. Hammond,
In XII Tabulae, vm, 21 (Girard); cf. Zmigryder-
7
AJP. 1938, p. 483.
Konopka, Studi italiani di filologia classica, xiv, " Pp. 117 ff. 1 3
Pp. 13 ff.
 RELATION OF T H E CITIES T O AUGUSTUS 319
hypotheses (p. 45 3 n . ) ; Kahrstedt has added that von Premerstein exaggerates its applica-
1

tion to earlier periods. But its relevance to the coniurationes o f the second triumvirate
is unmistakable. The truth is that, like so much else, i t was rescued by Caesar from the
'gangster* regime which he ended, but only given a permanent footing b y Augustus.
In his principate the influence o f the clientela conception was manifold and widespread,
and the veneratipn which i t postulated was the basis o f the Imperial structure. I t was
natural, then, for Roman cities to add the great conditor et patronus to the select
gallery o f founders' coin-portraits. But Pliny the elder actually shows that portraiture
was a privilege specifically appropriate to patroni: in atriis honos clientium instituit sic
2
colere patronos. L . Abullius Dexter is honoured i n this way by a collegium clientium
3
at Aesernia. This practice and this spirit played a decisive part i n the inauguration
of imperial coin-portraiture.
The conception o f Augustus as universal founder underwent, in Roman communities,
an obvious process o f development. The first Roman founder, and the founder o f
Rome, was Romulus: the view that the new princeps was a second Romulus was not
only everywhere current, but was politically stressed after Actium to such a degree
4
that it became for a while the basis o f official publicity. This suggested an enlargement
of the idea. Augustus, like Romulus, was not only the conditor-patronus o f the State,
he was thereby its pater also.5 A patronus possessed a father's auctoritas, dignitas and
potestas? and Horace has already been cited to show that patroni could be hailed as
pater. I n another passage he calls Augustus pater urbiumJ The princeps became the
8
universal father; D i o informs us o f the moral responsibilities o f both parties which this
conception o f the first princeps entailed. Such deductions from the clientela * ideology'
were formally recognised i n 2 B.C. by the title o f P A T E R P A T R I A E — t h e colony o f
0

Patrae relates its own establishment with that o f the Empire by the simple description
of the founder by this appellation (p. 265). I t was the culmination o f his honours, and
the crystallisation o f the auctoritas which was the moral and executive basis o f the new
rigime (p. 444). Augustus was founder, patron and father to the whole Roman w o r l d . 10

It was, no doubt, owing to the rapid evolution o f this idea that subsequent principes
refused to become the patroni o f individual cities," since this position would have been
supererogatory and invidious for the universal patron. Lesser patrocinia tended to die
out as the princeps monopolised the idea."
1
GGA. 1938, pp. 5 f. L i n , 18. 3.
8

2
NH. xxxiv, 17. 0
Unofficially bruited some years earlier: cf.
3
CIL. x, 6094; cf. von Premerstein, p. 88. Sutherland, RIS. p. 159.
4
Kornemann, Klio, 1938, pp. 81 f., 85. Cf. von Premerstein, p. 167; Skard, QAS. in,
1 0

5
Cf. Skard, l.c; id. QAS. ill, 1937, p. 29; i937,pp. 28f.; Scott,ArchivfilrReligionswissenschaft,
Kornemann, QAS. iv, 1938, p. 11; Berlinger, Zur xxxv, 1938, p. 127.
inoffilUlUn Titulatur, p. 77. Sebastian, De patronis, etc., Diss. Halle, 1884,
1 1

6
Cf. Kaser, SavZ. 1938, pp. 62 ff.; Skard, l.c. p. 11.
p. 48. Cf. von Premerstein, p. 113; Anderson, JRS.
1 2

7
Carm. m, 24. 27; cf. Christ, Tiibinger Beitrage xxix, 1939, p. 94.
lur Altertumswissenschaft, XXXI, 1938, p. 120,
320 T H E R O M A N CITIES A N D T H E STATE
I t is, then, i n this capacity—not as Imperator—that the Roman cities honoured
1
Augustus w i t h coin-portraiture. However, like other institutions o f the period, this
portraiture had more than one origin, and was caused b y a blend o f interacting tradi-
tions. A large part was played i n its development b y the religious element—likewise a
derivative o f t h e ' charismatic' auctoritas (p. 444). Romulus was divine; i t was easy to
confuse the imagines o f a patronus w i t h those o f a genius; and the genius (or numen) o f
Augustus was given a place i n the temples o f Italian cities as early as 36 B.C.3 I n
2

Roman cities outside the peninsula, the institution o f Augustales i n c. 13 B . C . marks the
4

standardisation o f a process that had long been developing. Nock5 reminds us that
'a municipality was free to show its loyalty i n forms not always sanctioned for larger
political units'. But even at Rome, where Augustus was not actually deified until his
6
death, the only other portraits besides his on the obverses of coins were those o f gods.
I n other cities, the earliest occurrences o f the triumvirs' heads suggest that a certain
superhuman significance was attached to them. Antony follows closely upon Divus
Julius at Corinth and Sinope—cities o f whose restoration b y the triumvir there is no
record; but at that time he was being hailed as New Dionysus.? A t Lugdunum, the
first colony to employ a head o f Octavian, i t is actually equated w i t h the portrait o f the
divine dictator. The colonists were already clearly aware o f a new magnitude i n the
personalities o f those who controlled them: later, the universal patronus o f the re-
founded Republic easily achieved a more than human status. Thus the sociological ideas
o f the principate began to take shape; the' Imperial' portrait was a natural manifestation.
The development o f these ideas soon caused a reflection o f the glory to the dynastic
8
house: a significant feature o f the idea of clientela is its inheritability. Sutherland* has
shown the intense industry w i t h which Caius, Lucius and Tiberius are honoured—not
as local magistrates only—by the Spanish communities. The imagination o f other
cities was even more provident: Apamea, Corinth and Pella do not neglect the chances
o f Agrippa Postumus, and the financiers i n power at Corinth look ahead two princi-
pates, doubt, and decide to omit neither Germanicus nor Drusus. These portraits o f
princes alternate w i t h those o f the princeps-. a distinction made b y Lampridius between
10
heads o f the Emperor and o f his family is the product o f a later period. Augustus and
his kinsmen were all alike possessors o f a remarkable degree o f auctoritas, and were all

1
The ideas which contributed to this institution 7 Tarn, ibid. pp. 33, 53, 69.
make it understandable that Gades, in commemo- 8
von Premerstein, p. 17; Anderson, JRS.
rating Augustus and L . Cornelius Balbus, allows a 1939, p. 94; Stone, CR. LI, 1937, p. 29; Weber,
portrait to the former but not to the latter (p. 172). Princeps, p. 221; pace Kubler, Gnomon, 1939, p»
* Perhaps rather than he himself: von Premer- 325.
stein, p. 170; cf. Taylor, TAP A. LI, 1920, pp. 116 ff. * JRS. 1934, pp. 31 ff.
3 Cf. Nock, CAH. x, p. 482. 1 0
Historia Augusta, Vita Antonini Diadumeni,
4
Taylor, TAPA. XLV, 1914, pp. 234 ff. 2. 6: statim apud Antiochiam moneta Antonini
5 L.c. p. 487. Diadumeni (sic) nomine percussa est, Macrini usque
6
Ibid. p. 488. ad iussum senatus dilata est.
 RELATION OF THE CITIES T O AUGUSTUS 321
alike portrayed. Yet there was never a formal assurance o f the continuation o f the
1 2
principate, and Augustus's predominance was not extended to his family. Nothing
could show more clearly than coins honouring the domus Augusti that the Roman
3
citizenry o f the Empire, like the Greeks, were not deceived by the constitutional
4
fictions. Not that these fictions were neglected: they are seen embodied i n the
titulatures which accompany nearly every portrait o f Augustus i n the later part o f his life.
So much for portraiture. Such a crystallisation o f the sociological and constitutional
elements o f the principate shows an impressive blend o f auctoritas and potestas,
dignitas and divinity. But there was no apparent reason why i t should have the least
influence on the details o f city policy. W e must step from heaven to earth: Augustus
had as large a stake i n the latter as i n the former, and neither godhead nor political
theory sufficed for the successful control o f his earthly property. I t is necessary to
examine the humbler practical methods employed for this purpose. The coinage has
indicated that these included sheer administrative encroachment by his subordinates.*
The mints o f Roman cities are requisitioned and commandeered by his representatives;
the African communities are instructed to publicise the institution o f amici principis.
Moreover, the formula PERMISSV A V G V S T I is openly recorded by cities even i n the
'senatorial' province o f Baetica; i n Italy itself the Paestan mint, only operating on
sufferance and under special conditions, appears to write l(ussu) A(ugusti) for the
issue o f its supervisor M . I . Ne. The patron and father o f these cities was entitled to
advise and influence their governing bodies as he thought fit, and this is only one o f
the many executive activities which were derived from his morally binding auctoritas
(p. 433). I t is significant that such intervention has no connection whatever w i t h his
imperium: without the assistance o f this, the auctoritas principis was no less decisive
than its frequent partner the auctoritas senatus consulti, though neither yet had theo-
retically the force o f law.
Augustus's auctoritas, then, enabled him to interfere directly in the affairs o f the cities.
But, true to the indirect character o f his policy, he preferred that these should seem
to thrive without frequent and open application o f pressure—for example, without
6
his actually presiding i n the colonial courts like Caesar. Various subtler means o f
intervention can be discerned from extant material. For example, the construction o f
8
an aqueduct at Venafrum,7 and o f walls elsewhere, shows that he made personal gifts
to the colonies an excuse for legislation regarding their maintenance. A similar purpose
1
Hohl, GGA. 1936, p. 137. (Smith College Classical Studies iv, 1923, p. 12); cf.
2
Kahrstedt, Klio, x, 1910, p. 292. Volkmann, Munchener Beitr. iur Papyrusforschung,
3
E.g. dedications eis TE T6V cnjTOKpAropcc KCCI X X I , 1935, p. 205.
T6V OTKOV (Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua, iv, 1 ILS. 5743; cf. Mommsen, Zeitschrift fur
292). Cf. p. 471. geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, xv, 1848, pp.
4
Cf. Menadier, ZfN. xxxi, 1914, p. 17. 288 ff.; Abbott and Johnson, p. 33.
5
Cf. Jones, GC. pp. 131 ff. 8
Inscr. of Firmum, Fanum, Perusia, etc.; cf.
6
E.g. at Carthago Nova: Nic. Dam. De vita X I I Borghesi, (Euvres, v, p. 372; Jullian, TP. p. 74.
3 22 THE ROMAN CITIES A N D T H E STATE
1
was no doubt served by his cura viarum —at first unofficial and then official—and i t is
2
interesting to note that main roads often ran through a colonial decumanus maximus.
Such characteristic examples o f the ' t h i n end o f the wedge* may have been common.
They were, moreover, encouraged b y voluntary appeals to the princeps for legal inter-
3
pretations.
4
Yet, as at Rome and at the peregrine communities, even this was less satisfactory
than the more surreptitious regulation o f local governing bodies b y influencing their
composition. Augustus found various ways o f doing this, from the very beginning o f
a city's existence: and i n so doing (as b y his use o f voluntary appeals) showed his
careful study o f the Hellenistic kingdoms.* A t Saguntum and Zama Regia the ad-
signatores Libo and Ambatus are personages i n high favour, who steal their respective
governors' thunder i n the years after Actium, when the princeps used his personal
agents for administration and so lessened the proconsuls' initiative (pp. 421 f.). A t
Halaesa, as well, he designated the first college o f magistrates, as Caesar had before
6
h i m ; one o f these was his flamen also, and such a combination became frequent at
Paestum.7 The eligibility o f freedmen, established i n the Lex Coloniae Genetivae
Iuliae? was also put to good use. Aeschinus, at Cnossus, is the princeps own freedman,?
and probably his procurator; Bennius and Hiberus, at Saguntum, are from similar
families i n his service. A t Corinth, Insteius was a gangster o f Antony, M . Antonius
Theophilus his procurator. W e find the names o f many wealthy gentes, often w i t h
curiously non-Latin names, from the social stratum thrown to the top b y the party
politics o f the revolutionary period. The son o f Theophilus became duovir after him
(p. 268): the continual reappearance o f the kinsmen o f past magistrates shows how
closely the oligarchies were limited to those houses whose loyalty to the regime was
10 11
proved. Augustus inherited from the Republic and from Caesar a close control over
the methods o f selection, and soon designations o f colonial patroni occur by his
2
auctoritas?
Particularly significant was the innovation by which the princeps himself accepted
the duovirate, an especially frequent practice i n the early years o f civitas (p. 163).

Dio LIV, 8; cf. LIII, 22; Suet. Aug. 30; cf.

1 9
His promotion shows that the exclusion of
Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 205; Jullian, TP. p. 75. freedmen from municipal office by Augustus,
2
E.g. at Axurna (Hyginus, De Limitibus Con- alleged by Gordon, JRS. xxi, 1931, p. 66, Suther-
stituendis, Feldm. 1, p. 179). land, RIS. p. 163, is incorrect. Mommsen, RGDA2

3
As at Pompeii and Corfinium; cf. Jullian, TP. p. 121, does not dispose of this. It also apparendy
p. 88; Kornemann, PW. xvi, 634. These are distinct invalidates A. M. Duff's limitation of their honours
from utilisations of the ius provocations (p. 450). to ornamenta decurionatus (Freedmen in the Early
Cf. Jones, GC. pp. i7off.
4
Roman Empire, p. 137).
5 Ibid. pp. 103 ff. 1 0
Cf. Jones, GC. pp. i7off.
Lex Col. Genetivae Iuliae, ch. 125.
6 1 1
Cf. von Carolsfeld, SavZ. 1936, p. 302.
1 2
7 Berlin (Tiberius). E.g. at Aquinum, Pais, Museo italiano di
Ch. 76; cf. Adcock, CAH. ix, pp. 709 f.
8
antichita classica, I, 1885, p. 39.
 R E L A T I O N OF T H E CITIES T O AUGUSTUS 323
1
When this occurred, he was represented on the spot b y a singlepraefectus iure dicundo.
2
A b b o t t remarks that the powers o f these officials were such that they may be called the
progenitors o f the Trajanic curatores reipublicae. The coinage o f Saguntum and Zama
Regia reveals that certain occasions shortly after Actium endowed praefecti w i t h an
importance actually exceeding that o f the curatores. Libo and Ambatus, after
organising the constitutio o f these cities, stay on—like L . Aclutius at Venafrum—as
praefecti for theprinceps, who, without a colleague, accepts the first (and often the
second) duovirate o f the newly founded towns. I n a period when the powers o f pro-
consuls were being limited, these praefecti were local dictators dependent only on
Augustus: their portraits on the coins show that the local communities did not fail to
hold them i n due honour. Augustus's vicegerents also were occasionally allowed to
accompany h i m : coins o f Saguntum and Cnossus show that, contrary to the general
view, Augustus permitted Agrippa and Tiberius to be his colleagues,* and each to be
represented by his own praefectus. T w o praefecti also regularly served when two
members o f the Augustan house (not including the princeps) were duoviri.* I t was not
long before other trusty servants o f the regime were admitted to honorary duovirates:
T . Statilius Taurus,* Sulpicius Quirinius, and Man. Acilius (p. 249) are among those
6

found i n this capacity. Such honorary elections were utilised with the greatest freedom,
and became a prominent feature i n the competitive adulation o f the cities. A t Celsa,
as early as the forties B . C . , they were extended to the even more important quinquen-
nalian magistracy, for which they are de regie at Saguntum. The custom was increased
insidiously: i t is understandable that, once commenced, its cessation might have caused
offence, or invited unfavourable comparisons w i t h a neighbour. Its value to Augustus
was inestimable. His praefecti at least, and probably those o f his regents, were chosen
by himself, and for their year o f office the government o f their city was i n their hands
alone. The coinage shows that the citizens were sensible o f the importance o f these
extraordinary magistrates.
Thus the methods o f intervention used by Augustus were characteristically varied.
A t first sight they seem to present something o f an anticlimax. Just as the official
currencies were planned w i t h insufficient completeness to exclude such a source o f
local pride as city-issues,? so the administrative interventions were not quite enough to
ensure formal centralisation o f policy: there is an apparent inconsistency between the
loftiness o f the Imperial dignity and the bathos of its application. The contrast was not
accidental. Not one o f the means o f intervention, direct or indirect, which have been
discussed, is traceable to the autocratic power o f an imperium. O n the contrary, they
1
Kornemann, PW. xvi, 1623. It has been 4
Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, 1, 308, etc.
pointed out above, p. 10, that they must not be 5 At Dyrrhachium (CIL. 111,605) and Ilici (CIL.
confused with praefecti a. d. a., as by Jullian, TP. 11, 3556).
P* 9-
2 6
At Pisidian Antioch (cf. Bleckmann, KHo>
2
Abbott and Johnson, p. 63. xvn, 1921, p. 111).
3
They owe their portraits to this office. 7 Cf. Sutherland, RIS. p. 164.
3 4
2
THE ROMAN CITIES A N D THE STATE
belong to the nebulous realm o f auctoritas, and to this all Roman city coinage must be
assigned (p. 427). Such tact left room, not for freedom, but for libertas. I t is not for
nothing that the duoviri N . Gavius and M . Marcius at Paestum exalt the deity MENS
1 2
B O N A . Liber tas was often identified w i t h political docility: i t had to be a libertas
plena pudoris? or i t came to an end. The Res Gestae is divided into two sections, com-
prising auctoritas and libertas respectively—what the people gave to Augustus and
4
what he gave to them.
The extent and limitations o f the latter are well illustrated by a comparison o f the
colonies and municipia. The original distinction between the two grades* was now, for
6
all practical purposes, non-existent. Even their governing bodies no longer observed
the original restriction of quattuorviri to the municipia, and duoviri to the colonies (pp. 169,
200), and the former class was now as liable to drafts o f settlers (pp. 155, 169), and
7
often as exclusively Roman, as the latter. The solid benefits o f immunitas? iurisdictio?
10
and plena legis actio, were conferred on and withheld from both classes alike." Siculus
Flaccus emphasises the apparent arbitrariness o f the grants to these cities—casibus
12.
bellorum aut utilitatibus populi Romani out ab iniustitia, ut dicunt, inaequales. The
division was not between colonies and municipia. Yet the coinage provides several
indications that the municipia—like the Latin cities (p. 336)—still cherished the out-
For her shrine at Paestum vide CIL. x, 472. limitation of the initial enfranchisement to resident
1

For her significance, vide Heinze, Vom Geist des Romans, as at Emporiae.
Romertums, pp. 280 f.; Roloff, GGA. 1939, p. 98. 8
Kornemann, PW. xvi, 634. It was no longer
2
Cf. Kloeset, Libertas, p. 15. inseparable from libertas, either Roman or pere-
Laus Pisonis, 106 ff. Cf. pp. 315 f.
3
grine: cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 151. Ius italicum, on
Ferrabino, Augustus (1938), pp. 50 ff.; cf. Last, the other hand, was probably still an invariable
4

JRS. XXVIII, 1938, p. 212; Kiibler, Gnomon, 1939, perquisite of civitas (p. 315).
p. 324. Cf. below, p. 403. 9 Hyginus, De Condicionibus Agrorum (Feldm.
5 Festus 126; Siculus Flaccus (De Condicionibus p. 120, 1. 5, also p. 83, 1. 5); cf. Frontinus, De
Agrorum, Thulin, Teubner ed. p. 98; Feldm. p. 134); Controversiis Agrorum (ibid. p. 19, 1. 3, with non
Gellius xvi, 3, cf. Gelzer, Frankfurter Universitats- inserted, as by Thulin, Teubner ed. p. 8).
reden, xix, 1924, p. 12 n. 29; Stevenson, RPA. 1 0
Dig. 7.1. 4, 26.1.6.2; Paul. Sent. 11, 25. 4; cf.
p. 167; Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1938, pp. 240 ff. Jullian, TP. pp. 32 f., correcting Mommsen, Die
6
The views of Toutain, Mil. d*arch. 1896, Stadtrechte usw. p. 436.
pp. 315 ff., id. 1898, pp. 141 ff., Halgan, Essai sur 1 1
Last, JRS. xxn, 1932, p. 59; Syme, Papers of
I*administration des provinces sinatoriales, p. 118, the British School at Rome, xiv, 1938, p. 14, dispose
Savigny, Vermischte Schriften, ill, pp. 285 f., are of the view accepted by Schubart, Bulletin de
corrected by Mommsen, Hermes, 1892, p. 112, id. rinstitut francais d*archiologie orientale, XXX, 2,
Abh. Gottingen in, 18, p. 436 (modified in Gesam- 1930, pp. 412 ff.; Homo, Le Haut Empire, pp. 27of.,
melte Schriften, pp. 113 ff.), Jullian, TP. pp. 31 ff., and Carcopino, Points de vue, iv, pp. 170 f., that a
Beaudouin, Revue ginirale du droit, 1896, pp. 201 ff.,fundamental difference still existed between cities
M. Weber, Romische Agrargeschichte, pp. 64, io6ff.,which possessed and lacked the so-called ius honorum.
Last, CAH. xi, p. 454, Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im 1 2
Thulin, Teubner ed., p. 101, Feldm. p. 138:
romischen Italien, p. 176, Stuart Jones, JRS. 1936, p. inaequali, according to MS. Gudianum. Not later
268, Sherwin-White, p. 86, Stevenson, RPA. p. 167. than the first century: cf. Lange, GGA. 1853,
7
Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 171 f., for the frequent pp. 530 f.
 R E L A T I O N OF T H E CITIES T O AUGUSTUS 325
1
ward signs of their originally greater independence and seniority, and that the colonies
2
had not yet, as later, attained higher prestige from their closer connection w i t h the
3
central government. Municipal coinage tends to avoid mention o f Augustus, or
pointedly honours him as one o f a series o f benefactors or as local magistrate rather
than as princeps:* i t does not hesitate to portray local adsignatores.$ These phenomena
are profoundly i n contrast w i t h the regularity o f colonial adulation. Augustus tried to
foster loyalty to the Imperial idea by multiplying colonies, often i n the place o f
municipia (p. 285); and he allowed colonial, but not apparently municipal, decurions to
6
vote by proxy i n the comitia. But i n the Lex Iulia VicesimariaJ and the Res Gestae
8 9
itself, the coloni have not yet ousted the municipes from precedence; and, after the
triumvirate, Augustus does not seem to have ventured to requisition a municipium for
official coinage. Indeed, even under Tiberius, colonia Praeneste petitioned for a return
10
to municipal status. The institutions o f municipia were not yet reduced to an artificial
11
uniformity; they still valued the illusion o f independence, and, as far as they could,
ignored the concentration o f power i n the overwhelming auctoritas o f one man. T o the
Roman cities—whose sympathy had been largely Republican i n 44 B . C . — t h i s sub- 12

ordination still appeared humiliating: the day had not yet come when servility made i t
12
a privilege to stand closer to him i n the position o f a colonus. Auctoritas lies heavier
in the scales than its partner i n the Res Gestae, libertas. The one was more than advice,
and the other less than freedom.
1
Kornemann, PW. iv, 513, 571. Apparent ex- be: Philemon Holland renders 'after a sort, and in
ceptions (e.g. Lex Mamilid) are due merely to some part*. But the second phrase must be geo-
groupings under the headings deductio and consti- graphical in sense.
tutio. 7 Paul. Sent, iv, 6. 2.
2
Cf. Last, CAH. xi, p. 454; Jullian, TP. p. 35. 8
21.
3 9
E.g. Emporiae, Dertosa, Haluntium, Caralis. As in Frontinus, De Controversiis Agrorum
4
E.g. Saguntum, Gades; but not Italica. (Feldm. pp. 19. 4, 20. 8, 21. 4); De Condicionibus
5
E.g. Saguntum, Caralis, Zama Regia. Agrorum (ibid. p. 35.14); Hyginus, De Condicionibus
6
Suet. Aug. 46; cf. Jullian, TP. pp. 33 f.; Agrorum (ibid. p. 114. 2); Siculus Flaccus (ibid.
Marzullo, l.c. p. 4. Suetonius is shown to be using pp. 135. 2, 163. 27). Cf. Jullian, TP. p. 35.
colonia in its strict sense (i.e. not merely as 'Roman Gellius, NA. xvi, 3; cf. Last, CAH. xi, p. 454.
1 0

city*) by his comment Italiam...urbi quodam modo Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 215.

1 1

pro parte aliqua adaequavit; that is, not all of Italy Cf. Syme, RR. p. 101.
1 2

was involved. Translators usually take the two 1 3

Shuckburgh, ed. Suet. Aug. p. 102, antedates
qualifying phrases as identical, which they cannot the change to this period.
 327

Part I I I
THE PEREGRINE COMMUNITIES
•<<• >>•

INTRODUCTION

T
H E currency o f the peregrine communities raises a new set of problems, which
demand a different scheme o f arrangement. Here local attributions should
not i n general cause great difficulty—although misreadings are as thick as
flies—since it is customary for the ethnics to be written i n full; on the other
hand, the question o f chronology is exceedingly complicated, owing to undescriptive
titulatures and the long retention o f Augustan portrait-types. The first Chapter is
concerned with the coinages i n honour o f Augustus—a group whose link, his portrait,
is the greatest unifying feature which had ever appeared i n the coinages and loyalties o f
the Eastern cities. The coins which are the subject-matter of this Chapter number about
324 principal varieties, of which some 43 are unpublished. Half-a-dozen o f these have
been wrongly attributed to reigns; conversely, an important necessity is the expulsion
of 151 issues from the Augustan series to a later period. The second Chapter deals with
a topic of equal administrative importance, namely the relationship o f the communities
to the Roman governors and their administrations, as this is revealed b y the coinage;
the new evidence is then related to the much-disputed subject of local self-government.
In this period occur the portraits or names o f twenty-three officials, o f whom.five have
been unrecognised.
Appendices 6-10 provide summaries connected w i t h this Part.
328

Chapter 1
T H E C O M M U N I T I E S AND T H E PRINCEPS
A. A U G U S T U S O N P O S T H U M O U S COINAGES

H E current arrangement of peregrine issues bearirig the head of Augustus gives a

T wholly false impression o f their quantity and distribution, and is valueless as a

basis o f research. I t has not been observed that a very large number o f coins,
generally attributed to his principate owing to the presence o f his portrait and o f the
titles 2EBASTOI or KAIIAP I E B A I T O I , are actually o f a later date.
Proofs o f this contention are available from many sources. A n arresting indication
that i t may well be the case is provided by a coin o f Aezanis (?), on which AYTO.
KAI. ZEBAI. occurs without 0e6s and with a normal portrait o f Augustus: but on
1
the other side appear the head and title o f Nero. N o less significant is the appear-
ance o f Augustus's own head, inscribed KAIIAP I E B A I T O I , on coins signed b y the
Galatian legatus T . Helvius T . f. Basila (Pi. I V , 23): his tenure o f the province must
2

3
be attributed to the last years o f the principate o f Tiberius, whose head elsewhere
appears on his coins (Pi. I V , 22). 4

It is, therefore, not surprising to find, at Laodicea ad Lycum, two pieces w i t h differ-
6
ent legends ( I E B A I T O I 5 and KAAYAIOI KAIIAP ) whose identical portraits o f
Augustus (Pi. X , 20, 21), and identical reverse type and style (PL X , 23, 24), make i t
necessary to assume contemporaneous issue i n the reign o f Claudius. One o f the
signatories o f these, Dioscurides (3., issues coins i n his first tenure (which can scarcely
1
Mabbott collection; id. Rassegna monetaria, (l.c. p. 210) have established that a certain Cal-
XXXIII, 1936, p. 548. purnius (L. Piso Frugi ?), recorded in an inscription,
2
Paris, Berlin; cf. RS. xxi, 1919, p. 47, com- was legatus at the turn of the reign: ILS. 977 may
pleting GR.M^k. p. 228. 1. easily refer to some less important legatio which
3
Decisively established by Ramsay, Anatolian Basila had held under Augustus. On him vide
Studies to Buckler, 1939, p. 219, who identifies him further PIR. 11, 131. 46. I hope at some later date
with a man named in the Ancyra ZepcccrreTov in- to publish coins of Tiberius which further revise the .
scription (CIG. 4039, OGIS. 533), following Fasti of Galatia in his principate.
Rostovtzeff (Melanges Boissier, 1903, pp. 418 ff.). 4
BM, Berlin, own collection; cf. GR.M{k.
R. Syme informs me that he withdraws the objec- p. 228. 2. A further unpublished specimen at
tions to this identification which he raised in Klio, Istanbul confirms his rank by the inscription ETTI
XXVII, 1934, p. 134. On the strength of an inscrip- B A Z I A A TTPEZ. Z E B . , and his province is con-
tion calling Basila legatus Caesaris Augusti (ILS. firmed by two coins in my collection found near
977) he had (ibid.) attributed the commencement of Ankara.
his legatio to the lifetime of Augustus (and its BM; MG. 404. 118 (Dioscurides (3).
5

termination to the following principate; cf. next 6

BM; cf. BMC. 160 (Polemon Zenonos).
note), but Calder (JRS. 1916, p. 134) and Ramsay
 AUGUSTUS ON POSTHUMOUS COINAGES 329
1
have been thirty years earlier than his second) w i t h a monogram KOP., which may
represent Corbulo, proconsul c. A . D . 5 i . A monogram NEP(cov) occurs on very similar
2

coins o f Trapezopolis.3 The same portrait appears at Laodicea with the name Pythes
Pythou p. (Pi. X , 22); ^ so that a different head w i t h Pythes Pythou (Pi. X , 19)5 must
also be considered Claudian. I t is not, therefore, an accidental coincidence that a series
at Aphrodisias w i t h I E B A I T O I , signed b y Apollonius jun., includes some portraits
that recall Caligula and others that suggest Claudius (Pi. X , 34) ;7 and that Thau-
6

8
mastus, who strikes for I E B A I T O I at Mylasa, also imitates a type o f Caligula's
9
dupondii. I n each case, as an examination o f the fabric confirms, the issues are not o f
Augustus's principate.
Additions to this group are provided by a number o f signatures which occur with
I E B A I T O I and Augustus's head, and also w i t h I E B A I T H — a title o f Livia only
10
found after her assumption o f the name Augusta after her husband's death. This post-
Augustan phenomenon is found w i t h variant portraits at Apollonia Salbace (Pi. X ,
27)," Tripolis (PL X , 30)," Eumenia (Pi. X , i6), 3 and Aezanis (PL X , 5, 9).^ The first
z

of these portrait-styles is found also at Dionysopolis (PL X , 28) * and Miletus, and the
x 16

second at Heraclea Salbace (PL X , 29). ? The later date o f the Aezanitan piece is con-
x

18
firmed by the appearance o f Drusus jun. w i t h the same moneyer. Hieraticus, whose
name occurs w i t h I E B A I T O I and IEBAZTH at Tripolis, is sometimes found with
10 20
Tryphon, who coins for I E B A I T O I and Caligula. The same method necessitates the
21
expulsion from the Augustan series o f other ZEBAZTOI portraits at Qdramus, Philo-
melium (PL X , 40) and Hierapolis 3 (cf. PL X , 35)^ because each o f the moneyers,
22 2

on other coins, honours young Nero; 5 and at Lebedus (Pi. X , 4 ) because a laureate
2 26

head o f Tiberius occurs. 7 Similarly Julius Callicles accompanies I E B A I T O I at

2

Siblia (PL X , 71), but Tiberius * and Germanicus3° at Apamea; the curious post-
28 2

1
BMC. 141. Wad. 5936.
2
Waddington, Fastes des provinces asiatiques, 82. Paris =M. in, 167. 773.
1 6

3 BMC. 8. 4
BMC. 138 ff. 7 BMC. 15.
X

5 BM, Lockett coll., M. S. vn, 583. 441. 1 8

Berlin. BMC. 52 (PL X I , 39).
6
BMC. 85—cf. BMC. Imp. Caligula, 2, etc. BMC. 52; Lyd. S. 39, 3.
2 0

7 BMC. 88—cf. BMC. Imp. Claudius, 64, etc. Wad. 4935 (Polemon Seleucou).
2 1

8
BMC. 21, KM. 3. Vienna = GM. 718a (Brocchi).
2 2

9 BMC. Imp. Caligula, 94. BMC. 105; Wad. 6133 (Meniscus Diphilou y.).
2 3

1 0
Never anticipated—Dittenberger, OGIS. p. 204 Gotha (Charopides Sostratou); cf. KM. 14a
2 4

n. 15. (Diphilos Diphilou), BMC. 106=KM. 22 (Matron

1 1
Masc: BMC. 17; fem.: BMC. 20 (Callippus Apolloniou); BMC. 107 (Iollas Iollou).
Artemidorou). *5 Cidramus: KM. 6; Philomelium: GM. 721;
1 2
Masc.: BMC. 50; fern.: Wad. 2&j% Copen- Hierapolis: Cambridge {McLean Cat., p. 312).
hagen (Hieraticus). Wad. 1706.
2 6

X3
Masc: Wad. 6026; fern.: BMC. 39 (Cleon 7 KM. 13; variants at Athens, Istanbul.
2

Agapetus;. * BM, cf. GM. 737.

8

1 4
Masc: BMC. 53; fem.: KM. 5, Berlin * BMC. 142.
2

(Menandrus). 3<> Wad. 5705.

330 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
Augustan portraiture is repeated at Metropolis ( P i . X , 72), Prymnessus (PL X I , i ) , *
1

4
Amorium,3 and probably Acmonia and Synnada.5 Sosthenes, too, is common to
SEBAITOZ (at Laodicea and Sebaste [PL X , 33]?) and Germanicus (at Hypaepa );
6 8

Muensterberg recognised one of the Laodicean pieces as Tiberian,? and a similar portrait
style is found at Dionysopolis (Pi. X , 32) and Eumenia (ibid. 31)." Yet another batch
10

o f coins w i t h IEBAZTOZ and similar heads is signed b y magistrates called Claudius:

these are found at Pergamum (PL X , 46), Stratonicea (silver) (PL X , 47)^ and Synnada
12

(PL X , 25). This gendlicium is very unlikely before the principate o f Claudius. *
14 1

16
Moreover, certain coins o f the Synnadan official, Claudius Valerianus, exacdy re-
1
semble others signed by Claudius Andragathus, ? who portrays on other pieces the
18 1
Emperor Claudius and young Nero; ? a certain M . Claudius Valerianus was dcpxtepsOs
20
'ACTIOS under Domitian. W i t h these pieces must be classed a Synnadan coin o f
precisely similar style signed b y one Crassus (Pi. X , 26). 21

A l l these pieces w i t h ZEBAZTOI, and the head o f Augustus, are posthumous.

Corroborative evidence is obtainable from the neglected coinages o f Syria-Phoenicia.
The only six stipendiary cities o f this region which devote obverses to portraits o f
2
Augustus" portray him on a single coinage only. 3 This, i n itself, suggests a special
occasion shared by all o f them. But this suggestion is confirmed i n an arresting manner
by the dates on these pieces: three o f them (Apamea, Gabala, * Gadara ) have '44';
24 2 26

Wad. 1764.
1
(Berlin) to Antioch in Pisidia, 'Damascus' (M. S.
GM. 725.
2
3 BMC. 24. vm, 11) to Tiberius (official series), 'Germanitia
BMC. 33 f.
4
5 BM ('uncertain'). Caesarea* (Gotha) to official series of Augustus,
« BMC. 147; Wad. 6260. Orthosia (M. in, 374. 416 f.; S. vi, 530. 460 ff.) to
7 BMC. 21, Rome. BMC. 15.
8
Carian Orthosia, Tripolis (Rouvier, JIAN. vi,
9 Walla sale, 1916. BMC. 14.
1 0
1903,1681-3, and M. v, 397.404 ff.) misreadings of
11
BMC. 34. later pieces e.g. BMC. 38, do. Caligula (Boutkowski,
1 2
Cambridge, Paris, misread by M. 11, 593. 339 DN. 2617 ff.) to Lydian Tripolis.
(Claudius Cephalion). 2 3
Aradus is the habitual exception which proves
J
3 BMC. 33; cf. KM. 5. the rule: there (BMC. 356; Rouvier, JIAN. m,
14
BMC. 34. 1900, 386-7) the portrait of Augustus is merely a
*5 Cf. Walton, JRS. xix, 1929, pp. 38 ff.; diminutive adjunct to the main type, a head of
Sherwin-White, p. 189. Astarte.
16
BMC. 8. 7 KM. 11.
x
Berlin (2) =M. S. vm, 153. 145. Unknown to
2 4

18
BMC. 36, Naples. Scholz, NZ. 1910, p. 151; Jones, CERP. p. 263.
attribution of the Vienna University specimen to 5 BMC. 3, Paris (2), Berlin, Istanbul. The re-
2

Caligula is wrong (as Elmer confirms). maining symbols vary in each case—9NZH (BMC.
3), ZH0E,
1
9 Oxford. (Paris), 0 E " - (Berlin), 0NZK
2 0
Cf. Chapot, La province romaine proconsulate(Istanbul)—and are therefore mint-marks as, e.g.,
d'Asie, p. 487. at Laodicea ad Mare, Seleucia, Balanea. Part of the
2 1
Paris. same issue (cf. style) is an undated piece at Munich
2 2
Publications and museum-cabinets provide a (rev. eagle).
number of misleading false attributions. Among the Vienna = M. v, 323. 21 (misread), ibid. S. viii,
2 6

necessary corrections are these: 'Caesarea Panias' 227. 11.

 AUGUSTUS ON POSTHUMOUS COINAGES 331
one (Ace ) '43'; ^° (Balanea [PL X I I , 20],* Gabala) have '59'; and one (Orthosia
1

[Pi. X I I , 21]) '60'. The fact that at least a dozen different eras were i n use i n Syria-
3

4
Phoenicia at this period makes the chances that these are accidental coincidences
infinitesimal. The chances are made smaller still b y the joint appearance o f '44* and
* 59* on the same coin at Gabala. The conclusion that these six issues were struck on a
single occasion is confirmed beyond any conceivable doubt by the blatant predominance
of the year-sign '44' on 'autonomous* issues also: i t appears on entirely isolated mint-
6
ages at five cities. A t the mints o f Tripolis* and t h e ' free* cities Seleucia and Laodicea?
(at the latter on a large issue), i t ends a period o f inactivity lasting fifteen years or
8
longer; at Demetrias t h e ' autonomous * series had not produced a coin for more than a
century, and at Ace? no other dated' autonomous* issue whatever bears the same ethnic
10
(AKH).
There can therefore be no doubt whatever that the year '44' was an occasion for
joint numismatic celebration. A t Tripolis, Seleucia and Laodicea the era is demon-
strably Actian. This is i n accordance w i t h evidence from one o f our six portrait-
issues, at Gabala: Jones's v i e w " that '44' and '59' there refer to the Caesarian and
Pompeian eras respectively is disproved b y Lederer," who shows that Caesar's era at
Gabala began as late as 46-45 B.C.—considerably more than fifteen years after Pom-
pey's. A t Gabala also then, '44' must refer to the Actian era, w i t h '59' alluding to the
Caesarian. I t is, accordingly, inevitable that the other coinages w i t h '44' and '59*
should be allocated to the same two eras. Thus all o f them, at four cities with
portraits and at five without, fall to the year A . D . 13 (September)-A.D. 14 (September). 13

Now Tiberius succeeded Augustus i n A u g . 14, and an accession to the principate was
1
Kouvier, JIAN. iv, I90i,p. 210,110.985. Hill, 6
BMC. 27 (with symbol TO)—previous one
BMC Phoenicia, p. lxxxi, misattributed by de '22' (BMC 28).
Saulcy, Milanges de Numismatique, 11,1877, p. 143. BMC 16-18 (with various symbols)—previous
7

To Claudius must be relegated coins with 'Antio- one '24' (BMC 15).
chia' (Philadelphia University: reference owed to 8
Berlin = M. v, 359.14—previous ones in c. 95-
G. M. Fitzgerald. Cf. Rouvier, l.c. 995) and 85 B . C (BMC 1 ff.). This coin appears to invalidate
'Germanicia' (Rauch, BB. 1870, p. 25, no. 37; the assumption of Jones, CERP. p. 255 (cf. Wroth,
Imhoof-Blumer, NZ. 1901, p. 11; Jones, CERP. BMC. Galatia, etc., p. lxxvi), that Demetrias was
p. 265). Damascus, since the latter maintains its own ethnic
2
Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, M. v, 226, misread in the early principate: cf. also pp. 371 f.
by.Sestini, Hedervar. pi. X X X , 12. This too has * Rouvier, JIAN. iv, 1901, no. 983.
1 0
additional symbols which do not include a date, The only other 'autonomous' coin of any kind
e.g. 0 2 0 (Paris, cf. Rollin et Feuardent sale [1864], with AKH is ibid. 984.
7io6). 11 CERP. p. 456 n. 46*.
3
Cast at Winterthur, Munich, Vienna; cf. M. v, 1 2
ZfN. xxxiv, 1923, pp. 179 f.
365. 184 (misread), ibid. S. vm, 262. 105. 1 3
A supplementary date at Apamea, '28', must
4
Cf. Kubitschek, PW. 1, 647 ff.; Jones, CERP. therefore refer to 15-14 B . C This is highly ap-
Pp. 254 ff. propriate in view of Agrippa's likely activity as a
5
Rouvier, JIAN. vi, 1903, no. 1677—previous founder in-Syria at this date: e.g. colonia Berytus
one '29' (ibid. 1675). (p. 259). ,
332 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
just the kind o f occasion which such an isolated outburst o f coinage must com-
memorate: certainly no other can be found within the year A . D . 13-14.
The presumption that this was the raison d'etre o f the six portrait-coinages is strik-
ingly confirmed by another batch o f issues. A t Apamea, the only other portrait-piece
for a quarter o f a century bears the Seleucid date '326', and so can be ascribed to
1

A . D . 14-15: and the resemblance between this and the Apamean issue w i t h '44',
2

3
which stand alone and together, is unmistakable. A t Damascus, the only dated piece
of an issue which inaugurates the city's portrait-series bears the Seleucid date 325,
4

which can represent A . D . 13-14 or 14-15 ;* the next two portrait-mintages commemorate
successive decennia—of Tiberius! The first portrait-coin at Byblus 7 bears the date' 1':
6

this is shown to be o f Tiberius's regnal era by the appearance o f his name (ZEBAZTOI
ZEBAZTOY) on a second piece, o f year *2'. Here are three more cities which first
8

engrave an Imperial portrait on their coins i n the first year o f Tiberius; and the same is
undoubtedly true o f the '44' and * 59' groups. But i f cities favoured by Caesar could
reckon from 46-45 B . C . , they could also reckon from 47-46:9 Orthosia, then, w i t h the
date '60', might join this unrecognised category. So might two more cities whose first
10
and only portrait is o f Tiberius, Epiphaneia, and Demetrias" whose precisely con-
temporary 'autonomous' issue has been mentioned (p. 331).
The only stipendiary portrait-coinage left is o f Ace, w i t h the date '43'. By the laws
of averages, its isolated portrait-issue, dated only one year away from the rest, can
scarcely but belong to the same category. I n particular, i t should be noted that the
only other piece i n existence w i t h the same ethnic (AKH) is actually o f the autono-
mous ' 4 4 ' group. This coincidence is emphasised by the behaviour o f the 'free' city
of Antioch: Q. Metellus Creticus Silanus became governor i n 12 (p. 127), but Antioch
only begins coining under h i m (EFII ZIAANOY) w i t h the dates ' 4 3 ' and ' 4 4 ' . "
These pairs (like the others at Apamea and Byblus) recall the frequent habit, i n

1
Paris, Glasgow = M. S. VIII, 153. 144. Vienna, '99'. In anticipation of a closer study
10

2
Cf. Abel, Revue biblique, 1938, p. 213. of Tiberius's issues in a later work, it may be men-
3 Paris (2), Vienna = M. v, 285. 27. tioned that Epiphaneia's nearest neighbour, Larissa,
4
Undated piece: BMC. 5, Vienna, Berlin, freed itself and began coining in 85 B.C. (cf. Jones,
Munich, Karlsruhe, with obscure symbols. CERP. p. 255). Probably E . had the same era.
5 Cf. Abel, I.e.: in some cities the era began in Berlin = M. v, 359. 147; *ioo'—only one year
11

311 instead of 312 B.C. The same date '325' appears later than Epiphaneia. The founder of Demetrias
on the 'autonomous* coin of Tripolis with '44* (see was probably Demetrius HE Eucaerus (Wroth,
above, p. 331). BMC. Galatia, etc. p. lxxvi; Babelon, RoUJe Syrie,
6
Paris, Vienna =de Saulcy, Numismatique de lap. clxxi; Jones, CERP. p. 255): if the establishment
Terre sainte, p. 36. 2: '335'; Paris, Naples, Munich is attributed to the last year of his reign (88-87 * 0>
B C

(barbarous): * 345'. this coin will fall to A.D. 13-14. Indeed, the ana-
7 Hague-Rn. 1856, p. 394, misread by BMC. 19, logies of the * foundation'-issues of Demetrias
Imhoof-Blumer, MG. 26. (BMC. 1 ff.) lie, as Sestini pointed out (cf. Wroth,
Berlin = Imhoof-Blumer, l.c. 26 A, misread by l.c; M. S. VIII, 207), with coins at least as late as 87.
8

M. S. vm, p. 251. 67. " Macdonald, NC. 1904, p. 113, points out the
9 Cf. Kubitschek, l.c. falsity of earlier pieces.
 AUGUSTUS ON POSTHUMOUS COINAGES 333
Roman cities, o f saving some o f their commemoration fund for a second issue also. Our
acceptance o f Ace as yet another city coining for Tiberius's accession depends on the
answer to two questions. Could the Actian era here start—as would be necessary for
'43' to be A . D . 13-14—as late as summer 30 B . C . ? A n d , is an era from 157-156 or
156-155 B . C . , required b y the additional year-sign '170* which appears on this coin,
probable? Both these questions can be answered i n the affirmative. Syria was not
definitely taken over b y Octavian until winter 31-30 B . C . , and, i f Gabala could post-
pone its recognition o f Caesar's activity i n 47 until 46-45 B . C . , then Ace's Actian era
could begin a few months late: this is, i n fact, peculiarly suitable, since Octavian visited
Syria after the middle o f 30. W i t h regard to the second question, Balanea had com-
1

menced to coin i n 155 B . C . , claiming freedom i n a moment o f anarchy: and a similar

2

assumption for Ace is far more plausible than the current and confused attribution to
3
the seventies o f that century.
Ace, then, joins Apamea, Balanea, Byblus, Damascus, Gabala, Gadara and Orthosia,
as commencing its portrait-coinage on the accession o f Tiberius. Apart from the
repercussions this conclusion has for the chronology o f coinage and o f cities (p. 462),
4

it adds very materially to the category o f posthumous portraits o f Augustus. A t all

these cities the features are more or less Augustan, and must represent the deified first
princeps: at Damascus the legend is SEBAITOI,5 at Gabala (on the undated part o f
6
the issue) I E ; at Byblus i t is KAIIAP I E B A U O Z .
The recognition that so many pieces o f different provinces w i t h such inscriptions
are posthumous makes i t necessary to conclude that the survival o f this titulature was
frequent and regular; that its appearance is not enough, without further evidence, to
warrant the attribution o f any coin to his principate; and that deductions drawn from
supposed iconographic resemblances to Augustus are equally unsafe. His features are
accompanied by the title o f Caligula at Corinth,? are overstruck, at Cragus, on coins o f
Tiberius (Pi. X I I , 32)^ and at Nicopolis share a reverse-die w i t h a named portrait o f
Trajan.9 I n the same way, a medallion head o f Augustus occurs on a sheath on which
10
representations alluding to the principate o f Tiberius also occur. Montini has rightly
recognised many busts o f the first princeps as posthumous."
1
Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 113. 6
Munich.
a
Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 254. 7 Earle Fox, JIAN. 11, 1899, pp. 96 ff.
3
BMC. Phoenicia, p. lxxxi, ascribes the date 8
Imhoof-Blumer, ZfN. v, 1878, p. 149.
'43* here to the Caesarian era, but, in spite of his 9 on Sallet, ibid. p. 331 n. 1 (ZEBASTOY
V

recognition (ibid.) that that era began in 48 B.C., K T 1 Z M A ) . Wrongly attributed to Phina (pre-
assigns the accompanying date '170' to an era of sumably meaning Phinopolis, Strabo VII, 319) by
174-173 « « (his argument requires 176-175).
B c
Rauch, Mittheilungen der numismatischen Gesell-
4
All the issues (except the litde-known mintage schaft in Berlin, 1846, pp. 15 ff.
1 0
of Orthosia) have been regularly attributed to BM; Franks, Proceedings of the Society of
Augustus. Antiquaries, NS. in, 1866, p. 358, has no justifica-
A Paris specimen confirms M. v, 285. 27; but tion for identifying the medallion portrait with
Mionnet's readings of titles are often products of a Tiberius.
ready imagination. » Civilta Romana, v, 1938, pp. 74 ff.
334 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
1
Thus the features o f Augustus, like those o f Alexander, profoundly influenced the
period after his death. But i n many cases also, fortunately, Julio-Claudian icono-
graphy was influenced by the tendencies o f the time and the physiognomy o f the ruling
princeps. Thus we find portraits which waver between the features o f Julius and
2 3 4
Augustus, Claudius and Caligula, or Claudius and Augustus: i n the same way, the
Rhodians saved space and money by habitually adapting old statues to new faces!5 I t
is not surprising, therefore, that Augustus is represented with certain traits o f his
successors. These iconographic considerations and the demonstration that titulature
hitherto held to be characteristic o f Augustus may equally belong to a later date
necessitate the transference o f another huge group o f Asian coins to the post-Augustan
6
period. I n this group no less than forty-five cities are concerned, and perhaps a good
many more.? I t is therefore necessary to subtract, i n all, at least a hundred issues from
those generally attributed to Augustus: and evidence has been obtained from a post-
humous coinage on a vast scale i n honour o f that princeps. This evidence w i l l be used
later for a general estimation o f the local coinages.
1
Cf. L'Orange, Symbolae Osloenses, vm, 1929, Dionysopolis(?), Dioshieron (ibid. 10), Elaea,
p. 109. Ephesus, Euromus, Germe, Heraclea Salbace,
* Berlin (Furtwangler, Gesckr. d. geschnittenen Hypaepa, Lampsacus (ibid. 3), Laodicea (ibid. 18),
Steine im Antiquarium, p. 349. 11210, pi. 68). Magnesia ad Maeandrum (ibid. 39,42), Magnesia ad
3
Marlborough coll. (sale 1899, no. 407). Sipylum(?) (ibid. 7), Methymna, Midaeum (ibid.
4
The Veleia statue (Parma mus.) as interpreted 15), Miletus (ibid. 2), Mylasa (ibid. 38), Nysa,
by Stuart, Portraiture of Claudius, Preliminary Orthosia, Pergamum, Philadelphia, Philomelium,
Studies, p. 44. Priene, Prymnessus (ibid.), Samos, Scepsis, Tabae
5 Dio Chrysostom xxxi; cf. Jones, GC p. 243. (ibid. 45), Teos, Thyatira, Tiberiopolis, Trapezo-
6
Abydus (PI. X , 1), Alabanda (ibid. 12), Ani- polis(?), uncertain. An iconographic analysis of
netus, Antiochia ad Maeandrum (ibid. 36), Aphro- these issues is attempted in Appendix 7 (p. 463).
disias (ibid. 17), Apollonia Salbace (ibicf. 13, 44), 7
Even issues with portraits closely imitated from
Apollonis (ibid. 49), Assus, Attaea, Cibyra (ibid. Augustan originals, apparently, in the Augustan
41), Cidramus (ibid. 14, 48), Clazomenae (PI. X I , manner, are not above suspicion (p. 467).
44), Cos (PI. X , 37), Cotiaeum, Dardanus(?),
 A U G U S T U S A S CONSTITUTOR OF L A T I N CITIES

1
B. A U G U S T U S A S CONSTITUTOR OF L A T I N C I T I E S

Since the monetary freedom o f peregrine cities i n the West was, at the beginning of the
principate, demonstrably no greater than that o f Roman communities (p. 476),* their
issues—most o f which are isolated—will almost certainly be commemorative; and
since i t is to be supposed that they w i l l display the characteristics o f Roman city-
currencies i n the same provinces as much as, or more than, the traits o f Eastern
peregrine series, civic promotions and * foundations' supply likely occasions (pp. 290 ff.).
A particularly close analogy to the Roman colonies and municipia is furnished by the
important class o f Latin towns. These, though peregrine,* came to be considered, i n
the first century B . C . , as an intermediate class, since their magistrates, and their de-
4

scendants, were Roman citizens:5 L i v y and the jurists tend to class them w i t h Roman
6
rather than peregrine communities. Indeed, 'foundation'-issues celebrating the Latin
constitution form the sole coinage o f Salacia, Myrtilis and Baelo (pp. 23,25), and, i n a
later section, i t w i l l be shown that the same applies to Vesci, Brutobriga and Antipolis
(pp. 379,3 81,3 90). These foundations all belong to the forties, when the value of Latinitas
8
in the provinces as a preliminary to civitas was first appreciated. But Augustus main-
0
tained this policy, and i t is impossible to resist the conclusion that isolated mint-
ages, with his head, o f Latin cities are likewise foundation-issues. This is undoubtedly
10 11
true o f the single coinage o f Segesta: the town was Latin i n Pliny's sources, and
the remaining Augustan local coinage o f Sicily is entirely restricted to ' foundation'-
issues (p. 238). Segobriga, i n Tarraconensis, obtained Latinitas after the compilation
12

of Pliny's list, b u t ; as the tribe Galeria indicates, before the death o f Augustus:^ i t
14
cannot be fortuitous that the only portrait on its single Augustan issue is from a
prototype introduced at Lugdunum not long before Agrippa's death. This too
1
The word promotor, restored on a Flavian in- McElderry, JRS. 1918, pp. 53 ff.; cf. Sutherland,
scription (CIL. 11, 1052) by Wilmanns, l.c, has a RIS. p. 247 n. 9.
post-Augustan ring. 6
Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 93, 109.
* Cf. Hirschfeld, SB. Wien, 1883, p. 295; pace 1 Probably not Etrusco ritu: cf. Saflund, Shifter
Marquardt, St. V. 1, p. 52. utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, iv, 1,1934, p. 69
3
Last, CAH. xi, p. 452; cf. Gaius 1, 79. Sher- n. 1. 8
Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 176 ff.
win-White, p. 100, points out that the Latini 9 Ibid. p. 177.
possessed no right of appeal from a holder of im~ 1 0
BMC. 65, Cambridge (McLean 2569).
perium. " NH. in, 14; cf. Scramuzza, ES. m, p. 346.
4
Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 105. " The appearance of a Greek legend provides no
5
Steinwenter, PW. x, 1269; Cuq, Les instituts obstacle: for parallels see p. 195. Peregrine issues
juridiques des romains, i, p. 708; cf. Asconius, ap. of Augustus at Messana, cited by Torremuzza,
Cic In Pisonem, p. 3. The doubts of Bersanetti, Siciliae populorum, etc., veteres nummi, p. 49, pi. L ,
Bollettino di filalogia classica, 1936, p. 71, are 14, 15, are gross forgeries.
probably based on Mommsen's exclusion of the 1 3
Cf. Kubitschek, Imp. p. 199.
aediles from this privilege, shown to be false by 1 4
Vives iv, p. 47. 3.
336 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PRINCEPS
x
commemorates the constitutio, and so, by analogy, does the only mintage o f Ercavica
2
during this period. This obtained Latinitas i n time for Pliny's l i s t ; the modified
' Patricia' style suggests that the foundation (like that o f Roman cities [p. 170]) should
be attributed to Augustus's visit to Spain i n c. 15-14. The title o f municipium, which
appears on the coins, had begun to supplant colonia as the honorary appellative o f this
3
class o f city. By these analogies, and owing to the lack o f other stipendiary mints i n
Nearer Spain at this date, the isolated portrait-issue o f Segovia (Pi. X I I , 27) may 4

equally be ascribed to a Latin constitution—in this case, as the head is probably imitated
from early Eastern denarii, perhaps b y C. Calvisius Sabinus or T . Statilius Taurus
(29-28). The legend C L . perhaps represents a native ethnic such as is found on con-
6

temporary Roman foundation-issues (p. 170). A t these Latin cities the coin-portraiture
of Augustus is warranted by his auctoritas as constitutor and patronus. A t another city
his inscription, but not his portrait, occurs on a foundation-issue. A quadrans o f
CabeUio w i t h C O L . CABE. and I M P . CAESAR A V G V S T . COS. X I . (accompanied
1
by types o f a turreted female head and cornucopiae) is undoubtedly to be assigned to a
similar occasion, since Augustus, not Julius, gave the city Latinitas* no doubt during
his visit to Gaul.
I n provinces where the Roman city-coinage is not restricted to foundation-issues,
there is no reason to suppose that the Latin towns either w i l l observe such a limitation.
I n Baetica the Roman colonies were all founded at too early a date for numismatic
commemoration, but coined to honour Augustus's visit i n 15-14. The same is no
doubt true o f Carteia i n Baetica, which had been Latin since 171-170 B.C.° I t includes
in its plentiful Augustan coinage—an important supplement to the monetary system
(p. 296), worthy o f this doyen of provincial Latinitas™—a single piece w i t h the portrait
1
of the princeps} The reverse type is a rider on a hippocamp. Analogies o f formula,
12
style and provenance rightly induced Vives to attribute this rare piece to Carteia,
although he misread the legends. These are E X D . D . A V F I D I V S RVFVS
I I I I f V I R ] (Pi. I X , 27). Probably the princeps is again represented as patronus, though
1 3

1
Vives iv, p. 109. 1 ff. 8
Cf. Kubitschek, Imp. p. 207; Pliny, NH. 111,36.
2
NH. in, 24. Van Nostrand (ES. 111, p. 204) 9 Kornemann, p. 516. 37.
ignores this in attributing Roman status to the city. 1 0
Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 95.
3
Cf. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, 1, p. 293 Berlin, Madrid (del Rivero, Cat. p. 19), Rubio
1 1

n. 23; Steinwenter, l.c. 4

Vives iv, p. 46. coll. (Cadiz). Misread by Muensterberg, Beamten-
5 It is not this, but the Baetican Segovia, which namen 'uncertain'.
McElderry (JRS. 19-18, pp. 69ff.)points out to have 1 2
iv, p. 26. 56.
1 3
been unprivileged. Pliny frequently omits to men- For Roman magistrates' names on Latin city-
tion individual cases of Latinitas in Spain. Probably issues cf. also Valentia (p. 472). The common
the Tarraconensian Segovia achieved Roman rank generalisation that all Latin cities had duoviri
in Julio-Claudian times (CIL. in, 6419; cf. (CR. 1938, p. 9; cf. Rudolph, Stadt und, Stoat im
McElderry, l.c). Cf. Hiibner, MLI. p. 97. romischen ItaKen, p. 9) is refuted by many issues of
6

7 Copenhagen, Berlin; cf. Willers, NZ. xxxiv, Carteia, though it may apply to more recent founda-
1902, p. 119. tions (cf. Sherwin-White, p. no).
 A U G U S T U S A S CONSTITUTOR OF L A T I N CITIES 337
not, in this case, as constitutor. The single Latin city-issue o f Lusitania occurs at
1
Liberalitas Iulia Ebura, w i t h portraits o f the 'Patricia* types: its unique legend
PERMISSV CAESARIS A V G V S T I P. M . suggests commemoration o f Augustus's
election as Pontifex Maximus? The record o f Augustus's permission, found also at
colonia Emerita i n the same province (p. 221), confirms the probability that Latin cities,
like Roman, usually only coined by special favour to celebrate a special occasion, and
that they, too, were only exceptionally chosen to contribute to the economic scheme.
Besides Carteia, the only Latin town selected for this purpose was Vienna i n Narbonese
3
Gaul. The coinage o f that city, w i t h the ethnic C. I . V.—incorporating the honorary
4
title colonia applied to Latin cities founded before the principate o f Augustus —
consists o f large bronze 5 pieces very similar i n type to the issues o f Lugdunum i n
c. 40-38 (p. 207). But its current attribution to the same date is decisively contradicted
by the portrait o f the princeps, which is certainly not earlier than the Eastern series o f
c. 21-19 B . C . and probably as late as t h e ' Patricia' denarii (from c. 19).? I t fulfilled the
6

same purpose i n the network o f currency as had the Lugdunese series which i t copies:
8
finds occur i n many parts o f Gaul and occasionally i n free Germany.9 I t does not,
however, bear any imperial countermarks, and is not sufficiently ambitious or extensive
to warrant inclusion i n the same category as the Nemausan official series which
revived to supersede i t i n c. 15 (p. 114). Cities o f all categories were sometimes called
10

upon to perform an active function i n the currency o f their region (p. 296). A t
Vienna, as at Roman cities, the portrait o f the princeps is a manifestation o f his auctoritas,
as his juxtaposition to the divine Caesar emphasises. The same equation at Philippi is
due to jointpatrocinium o f the city (p. 275), an explanation which may also be valid here.
1
Pliny, NH. iv, 11; cf. van Nostrand, UCPH. 4
Cf. Kornemann, pp. 519 f.; Sherwin-White,
iv, 2, 1916, p. 101. Sutherland, RIS. pi. m, 7. p. 177. 5
Spectrogram 7.
2
Laffranchi, jR.tr. 1916, p. 293, interprets some6
E.g. BMC. Imp. Aug. 681.
peregrine issues in the same way. See also p. 376. 7 This is confirmed by H. Mattingly.
3
Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule, iv, p. 284 n. 3 (cf.
8
Strack, BJ. cvm, 1902, p. 10; also at S.
Sherwin-White, p. 188), correcting Kornemann 191. Germain-en-Laye (Reinach, Cat. 11, p. 319), Stras-
The tribe Voltinia is found in no other Roman com- bourg (Forrer, Strasbourg-Argentorate, 1, p. 273),
munity in Narbonensis, but in at least two Latin Xanten, Neuss (Bonn mus.), Nijmegen (mus.),
towns—Antipolis and Cabellio. Kubitschek, Imp. Narbonne (mus.), Toulouse (mus.), Nimes (mus.),
204, shows that the presence of Vienna in Pliny's Nier coll., Vienne (mus.).
list as colonia (NH. 111, 36)—that is, by Pliny's 9 E.g. at Deersheim (Hansen, Sonderabiug aus
usage, colonia c. R. (cf. Mommsen, St.R. m, p. 472) Abhandlungen und Berichten aus dem Museum fiir
—causes no difficulty, since such later corrections Heimatkunde %u Magdeburg, v, 1928): others at
to the list were not infrequent (cf. Jones, CERP. Utrecht (van Hoorn, Gids, p. 47).
pp. 495 £)• 1 0
E.g. it bears no official countermarks.
338 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS

C. A U G U S T U S A S LIBERATOR OF 'FREE* C O M M U N I T I E S

I t is not surprising that the custom o f foundation-coinage, which has been shown to
play so predominant a part i n the numismatic history o f the Roman and Latin cities,
was adopted by the 'free' communities, whose privileges were likewise based on a
1
charter from Rome. Indeed, IXevOepios was one o f Augustus's most significant
2
titles. A n example o f such imitation is provided by Leptis Minor, known to Pliny as a
4
civitas libera* whose isolated first issue honours Caesar ( D I V V S I V L I V S ) like foun-
dation-pieces o f Hadrumetum (c. 42 B . C . ) and Achulla (c. 36-27) (pp. 227, 230). I t is
shown to be o f the latter date by a second piece with Octavian's head ([IMP.] CAESAR
D I V I F.),5 as on inauguratory coinages o f Achulla and Thapsus (p. 225). The portrait
o f Caesar indicates that, like them, Leptis Minor owed its privilege to a plan o f Caesar's
carried out by Octavian, and that this issue commemorates the plan and its confirma-
tion. Such an interpretation is remarkably confirmed by the illustration o f a kindred
habit b y the next mintage o f Leptis Minor. This is represented by three issues, i n -
6
scribed I M P . C(aesar) D(ivi) F. A(ugustus) P. M . P. P., T I . C A E . A V G . F. I M P . V.,7
8
and [ T I . CAE.] A V G [ V S T ] . F. I M P . V I I . The second and third o f these are dated to
8-10 and 12-14 respectively: the first, commemorating the princeps himself, is likely to
be contemporary w i t h , or a little earlier than, the second. N o w coinage is found i n
precisely similar circumstances—date, interval and isolation are the same—at Carthage
and Cirta: at both these cities (as also at Uselis, Lystra and Tarraco) the commemorative
occasion is the half-centenary o f Caesar's foundation (p. 295). A t the other cities the
privilege whose conferment is recalled was libertas o f citizenry: here, too, is commemo-
rated the fiftieth anniversary o f a grant by the dictator o f libertas—of the peregrine
variety. A t Carthage, where both the two earliest o f these exceptional obverse-
legends reappear—possibly on identical dies—the date o f both alike must (owing to
the same duo viral college) be A . D . 8. That year is suitable for the half-centenary o f
Carthage, but two years late for a conferment on Leptis Minor by Julius himself. I t
might, then, like Carthage, be commemorating the implementation o f such a grant by
Lepidus i n 42. But the possible die-identity suggests that Carthage was required to
supply obverse-dies to Leptis Minor—which, be i t noted, invariably uses Greek, not
Latin, for its ethnic 9—and that, since Carthage did not begin to coin until A . D . 8,
1
Cf. Jones, Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939), BM specimen. Plates of all these African pieces will
p. 109. be hoped for in E . S. G. Robinson's BMC
2
Cf. de Sanctis, Rivista di filologia, 1937, 6
Muller 11, p. 49. 17 (Paris),
pp. 338 ff. 7 Ibid. 18 (Paris).
3
NH. v, 25. 8
Ibid. 19 (Hague). A coin of Agrippina quoted
4
Muller 11, p. 49. 15, correcting Rn. 1841, by Muller (ibid. 20) from Seguin (cf. M. 11, p. 317)
p. 347. is more than doubtful.
5 Muller, l.c. 16 (Paris). The IMP. appears on a 9 AETTTIpE]. With denomination-marks B or C .
 A U G U S T U S A S LIBERATOR OF 'FREE' COMMUNITIES 339
Leptis also must needs delay its half-centenary issues until that date. I n any case, the
coincidence o f their curious legends indicates that the two mintages were contemporary.
The coins o f Leptis Minor show i n several respects the closest possible harmony with
the practice o f Roman cities, and bear witness to a careful imitation o f libertas et civitas
by mere libertas (p. 403).
A similar interpretation applies to the only two portrait-issues o f Oea. Besides the
1 1
ethnic, these are inscribed w i t h further neo-Punic words, Maqr Bilri and Ththe
3
Suq. Muller, searching for cities whose names these words could represent, unplausibly
ascribes the series to 'alliances' o f Oea with Macaraea and Bilan, and Zitha and Zuchis,
respectively: but H i l H voices modern opinion by stating that such interpretations are
quite discredited. These names must represent pairs o f suffetes, such as appear, indeed,
on other issues o f Oea.5 N o w this city was clearly free i n A . D . 69, when i t attained the
6
unenviable distinction o f a war against the Roman government: this would have been
impossible for a stipendiary town.? O n the other hand, its description without mention
8
of libertas by P l i n y — w h o does not miss, though he misinterprets, Julian oppida libera
in Africa (p. 226)—shows that Caesar did not confirm its freedom i n his reorganisation
of the province after Thapsus,? and that this had not been restored by c. 19-12 B . C .
The conferment must, therefore, be placed between that date and A . D . 69. Numismatic
and historical considerations alike indicate that this is the occasion celebrated by these
coins. A t the end o f an autonomous series, they stand quite alone as portrait-issues; and
Leptis Minor has demonstrated that peregrine towns adopted the habit o f such i n -
auguratory coinages. Moreover, the presence on these pieces o f two colleges o f
suffetes, but no more, irresistibly recalls the large class o f Roman cities whose founda-
tion-fund permitted a single repetition o f the inauguratory issue, and so, as here, the
occurrence o f a second pair o f signatures (p. 291). Again Leptis Minor provides an
analogy, by the duplication o f its issue (honouring Tiberius). Here at Oea, the more
careful o f the two portraits, that with the names o f Maqr and Biln, imitates a L u g -
dunese model o f c. 12-11 B . C . : and there is evidence o f attention to Tripolitania by
1 0

Augustus at about this date, since the terminus post quern o f the foundation-coinage o f
municipium Zitha is c. 16-12 (p. 188). Since Oea certainly became free within the
century, and every analogy points to the connection o f these coins w i t h some such
1
Sometimes omitted—Muller 11, p. 26. 46 f.; 6
Pliny, NH. v, 38; cf. Tac. Hist, iv, 50;
Hamburger sale (1925), 519; Hinglais, Recueil de Romanelli, Africa italiana, 1, 1925, p. 18.
la Soc. arch, du dip. de Constantine, xxxviii, 1904, 7
Cf. Wilmanns, CIL. vm, p. 5.
P« 186. 8
NH. v, 27. His description of it as civitas, not
2
Muller 11, p. 23. 43 ff.; Madrid (Calvo y in the usual way as oppidum, is merely a device to
Sanchez, Salon de Numismdtica, p. 218). avoid monotony: elsewhere he describes many
3
Muller 11, p. 20. 38 ff.; cf. Gesenius, Monu- stipendiary cities as civitates (ibid., e.g. 111, 18,
menta, p> 326. iv, 22), and even calls Thespiae a liberum oppidum
4
NC. 1929, p. 78. Cf. above, pp. 121,185 n. 6, (ibid, iv, 25).
n. 12.
1 8 8
9 As implied by Broughton, p. 51.
5
Muller, Suppl. 111, p. 35. *° BMC. Imp. Aug. 465.
340 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PRINCEPS
inaugural occasion, we may conclude that they commemorated a grant of libertas soon
after 12 B . C .
This conclusion is confirmed by the isolated portrait-issues o f the two adjoining
1
cities o f the Tripolis. That o f Leptis Magna bears a marked resemblance i n style,
portrait and type to one o f the inauguratory pieces o f Oea. Leptis Magna, like Oea,
cannot have been confirmed i n its libertas by Caesar—although evidence for its punish-
2
ment by him is confused —since i t also is not recorded as free by Pliny. But Oea's
jealousy o f i t i n A . D . 6 9 would have been strange i f Leptis Magna had merely been
3

stipendiary at that date; and not only does this coin strongly hint at a raison d'etre like
that o f the analogous Oean issue, but i t is accompanied by an 'autonomous' series
4
remarkably including a silver piece. Silver city currency (stipendiary) is only found at
Laodicea ad Mare at this date, but occurs at free cities (p. 402); most significant, however,
is the only African parallel,* which is a foundation-issue o f colonia Hadrumetum (p. 227).
There is, therefore, a strong presumption that Leptis Magna was freed, like its neighbour
Oea, not long after 12 B . C . Corroboration is provided by evidence o f remarkable pro-
gress i n local institutions very soon after that date. I n 8 B . C . we find, on a neo-Punic
6
inscription, a flamen divi luli, and shortly afterwards the name, i n Latin, of a patronus J
8
But the city cannot yet have held Roman or Latin municipal rank ( i f i t ever did),
since a suffete andflamen on a third inscription o f c. A . D . I , Annobal Rufus Himilchonis
10
Tapapi f.,9 is a peregrinus. I n view o f the numismatic analogies from Zitha and Oea,
it is necessary to assume that this sudden spate, at the turn of the century, of inscriptions
recording advanced institutions is linked w i t h the contemporary coinage, whose
character is undoubtedly commemorative. The occasion which i t celebrates is no doubt
the reorganisation o f Leptis Magna w i t h a constitution on the Roman model, but with
peregrine libertas: there is epigraphic record o f the care w i t h which the Semitic peoples
11
made translations and adaptations o f Roman officialdom.

1
Muller 11, p. 5. 14; Paris. Roman citizens (della Vida, Libya, in, 1927, p. 99
2
Cf. Romanelli, Africa italiana, I , 1925, p. 15, nn. 1, 2) does not prove anything.
criticising Gsell, Rivista della Tripolitania, I, 1924, 9 Caputo, l.c. p. 98; L annie ipigraphique, 1938,.
y

p. 42. no. 3.
3 Cf. Tac. Hist, iv, 50. 1 0
Caputo, l.c. p. 99, suggests that the name Rufus
4
Muller, 11, p. 5. 13, wrongly dated by Cagnat, is 'by adoption': but this is not necessary. For
Klio, 1909, pp. 194 ff. similar adoptions by peregrini of cognomen on the
5 Romanelli, l.c. p. 18 n. 2, wrongly states that Roman model (but not the nomen implying citizen-
there is no African parallel in this period. ship) vide Milne, NC. 1924, pp. 316 ff.
6
della Vida, Africa italiana, vi, 1935, p. 5. 1 1
della Vida, Africa italiana, vi, 1935, pp. 4&
7 Caputo, ibid. p. 95; Dannie ipigraphique, But the restoration of [ME]TRO[POLIS] on a
1938. 2. worn coin of autonomous type and ethnic (Muller,
8
The assumption depends on highly dubious Suppl. p. 34; cf. Kenner, NZ. 11,1870, p. 251) cannot
epigraphic evidence: vide CIL. VIII, %d; Bartoccini, be accepted or rejected without further evidence
Le terme di Leptis, p. 92; Romanelli, l.c. p. 20, cf. (cf. Romanelli, l.c. p. 18 n. 2).
n. 2; Caputo, l.c. p. 95. The occurrence of a few
 A U G U S T U S A S LIBERATOR OF 'FREE* C O M M U N I T I E S 341
The exact date o f the liberatio o f Leptis Magna can be recovered w i t h great prob-
ability from consideration o f a second isolated portrait-issue. This occurs under
Tiberius, who appears w i t h the title I M P . T I B . C A E S A R A V G . COS. I I I . ( A . D . 18-
1

20), D I V O S A V G V S T V S being represented on a second piece. Since this issue is

2

bound, b y every analogy, to be commemorative, i t is highly probable that, by the

analogy of Leptis Minor and Roman cities, i t celebrates an important anniversary o f the
foundation: the coinage for Augustus recalls similar honours to D I V O S I V L I V S by
cities i n Africa which he had promoted.* A t Dyrrhachium, Cnossus and perhaps
Patrae the quarter-centenary is chosen for this purpose (p. 295): i f the same assumption
is made here, the liberatio can be ascribed to 7-5 B . C . This date is appropriate since i t
accords conveniently w i t h the institution o f new religious officials i n 8 B . C . This was no
doubt one o f the elements i n the new organisation, whose completion may, w i t h the
formal liberatio, be assigned to the following year. N o doubt Oea was freed at the same
date.
There is a general probability that the third city o f the triad, Sabrata—likewise not
4
mentioned as free i n Pliny's list —was promoted at the same date, just as their colonisa-
tion by Trajan is likely to have been contemporary.* This conjecture is remarkably
confirmed by the fact that the only model whose use can be detected for its isolated
group o f portrait-pieces is derived from a denarius o f c. 8 B . C . Like Oea? and Leptis
6

8
Magna, Sabrata was a prosperous harbour and commercial entrepot? But there is a
special reason for the promotion o f all three at this date: their significance was enor-
mously increased owing to the war raging against the Marmaridae far to the south
(p. 141), and the supply o f provisions to the Roman armies must have depended almost
10
entirely upon these cities, which were at the roadhead. Probably, i n the absence of the
proconsul o f Africa, the liberation o f all three cities can be attributed to his repre-
sentative i n Cyrenaica, i n c. 7-6 B . C . , P. Sextius Scaeva (p. 142). The constitutio o f
Zitha (p. 187) may have been a military measure at the same date. The demonstration by
Leptis Magna that even peregrine civitates liberae had patroni clearly indicates that the
presence o f Augustus's head on the inauguratory issues o f these cities is due, as at
Roman communities, to the principle oiclientela—that is, to motives coming under the
heading o f auctoritas rather than imperium.
In the province o f Asia too there is a rich crop o f coinages commemorating liberatio
11
by Augustus. Immediately after Actium he conferred freedom upon Mylasa: i t is

Vienna: incompletely read by Muller 11, p. 6. 1933, pp. 149 ff.; de Mathuisieulx, Nouvelles
1

2
7a. * Ibid. 21. archives des missions, x, 1902, p. 270.
E.g. Achulla (p. 230).
3
9 Paribeni, Dedalo, v, 1925, pp. 665 ff.; Bartoc-
NH. v, 25.
4
5 Broughton, p. 132. cini, Guida di Sabratha.
BMC. Imp. Aug. 500. 1 0
Cf. Romanelli, Rivista delle colonie italiane, m,
Haywood, ES. iv, pp. 69, 75, 107
7
ff. 19^9* P« 544J Guidi, Africa romana, p. 238.
Gsell,Rivistadella Tripolitania, 1,1924,pp.41 ff.; Dittenberger, SIG? 768 = Abbott and Johnson
1 1

id. Mimoires de VAcadimie des Inscriptions, XLlll, 30.

342 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
therefore not fortuitous that the only issues o f that city which portray h i m i n his life-
time imitate models o f c. 31-29 (PL X , 52) and c. 28 B . C . O f these two coins the first
1 2

was clearly struck at the time o f the liberation, and the second recalls the custom o f
Roman cities to follow their inaugural issue by one other, after a very short interval
and from the same fund (p. 291); a feature also met w i t h at Leptis Minor and Oea
(pp. 338 f.). A contemporary coin w i t h the double ethnic o f Aphrodisias-Plarasa clearly 3

4
celebrates Augustus's unification o f the two communities, previously a avu-rroAiTEic<5
—as a single civitas libera:* here, too, Augustus's portrait does not appear again during
his lifetime. Since I l i u m strikes an equally early piece,7 this too may be supposed to
refer to Augustus's confirmation, during his residence i n Asia, o f the libertas conferred
8
on that city by Caesar; this carried w i t h i t the headship o f a Hexapolis worshipping
10
Athena.9 The privileges o f these three cities are all recorded i n Pliny's list.
A later phase is introduced by an isolated issue o f Cyzicus," using a portrait-model o f
c. 20-18 B . C . After the withdrawal o f its libertas for five years, Cyzicus obtained its
1 2
13

return i n c. 15 B . C . , and this is probably the occasion which the coin commemorates.
1 4

Equally significant is the single appearance o f the living Augustus at Cos (Pi. X I , 32),^
where his portrait is copied from a model of c. 2 B . C . - A . D . 11. 16
Cos does not figure as
'free' in-the Agrippan statistics used by Pliny, but i n A . D . 12 i t was one o f the few
1%
communities to retain its ius exilii^—a privilege peculiar to civitates liberae. A suitable
occasion for the conferment o f libertas was the restoration o f the city i n c. 5 B . C . after
1
its destruction by earthquake; ? the single portrait-coinage is entirely appropriate to
that date.
The post-Actian settlement to which Mylasa, Aphrodisias and Ilium refer is again
20
recorded by coinages o f the Lycian League. Both parts o f this, Cragus and Massicytes,
produce large bronze issues w i t h portraits imitated from denarii before 27 B . C . , the 2 1

former at Tlos (PL X I I , 31), and the latter at an unspecified m i n t , probably its
22 23

capital Myra. A commemorative character is clearly indicated by the exceptional

* BMC. 24: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 602. 11

BM, var. BMC. 210.
2
BMC. 19, Berlin: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 653. 12
BMC. Imp. Aug. 681 (?)•
3 Berlin, Wad. 6526: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 647. R
3 Dio LIV, 7; cf. Jones, CERP. pp. 87,401 n. 99.
Autonomous coin with the same style and ethnic: 14
Dio LIV, 23; cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 706;
KM. 1, Gotha. Jones, GC. p. 130.
Jones, CERP. pp. 77, 397 n. 80. '5 BMC. 245. BMC. Imp. Aug. 519.
4 1 6

5 Id. GC. p. 66. R

7 Dio LVI, 27. 2.
6
Henze, De Civitatibus Liberis, p. 52; Broughton, 1 8
Cf. Hartmann, De Exilio apud Romano's, Diss.
ES. iv, p. 707. Berlin, 1887, p. 24, and, for Cos, Broughton, l.c.
7 In trade (types of BMC. 29); cf. BMC. Imp. Hieronymus, Chronica Eusebii, year 201 (Helm
Aug. 632. 168.13); cf. Broughton, l.c. pp. 601,721; Burchner,
Strabo xm, 1. 27 Henze, l.c. p. 39; see Jones,
8
PW. xi, 1480.
GC. p. 130, for earlier grant. 2 0
Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 103; Head, HN. pp. 693^
9 IGRR. iv, 197; cf. Broughton, l.c. p. 716. 21
BMC. Imp. Aug. 633, etc.
10
NH. v, 108, 109, 124 respectively.
22
Wad. 3060. 2
3 BMC. 38; Wad. 311&
 A U G U S T U S A S LIBERATOR OF 'FREE' C O M M U N I T I E S 343
occurrence o f these large pieces amid the usual small 'autonomous* currency o f the
League. The prototypes suggest the period o f Octavian's presence i n c. 30-29 when
1

2
the libertas o f the League was confirmed. Myra and Tlos, never before first-grade
2
cities, probably owe their advancement to the same occasion, so that the coinage com-
memorates that also. This conclusion is confirmed by the only remaining portrait-
4
pieces, which are equally large. One o f these was struck by Cragus at Telmessus, and
the other, lacking mention o f either federative half, was issued at Cyaneae.5 Those, too,
6
were not previously cities o f the first class, and the coins manifestly celebrate their
elevation.?
The provinces o f Eastern Europe bear witness to Octavian's sojourn after Actium
by liberatio issues o f three cities. Most important are coins whose legends AYfOYX-
8 0
TOZ K T I I T H Z and IEBAZTOY K T I I M A explicitly (though not immediately) bear
10
witness to the great OVVOIKICTUOS o f Nicopolis i n Epirus as a peregrine civitas libera
perhaps carried out by C. Proculeius, who represented the princeps in these waters
(p. 67). Here Octavian combines the conditor tradition o f Romulus w i t h the KTICTTTIS
tradition o f the Diadochi. I t is necessary also to refer a very early post-Actian coin o f
11 12
Amphipolis, w i t h KAIZAP 9 E 0 Y YIOZ and an appropriate portrait, to his con-
13 14
firmation o f the libertas o f that c i t y , probably during a visit. Since Tanagra likewise
appears i n the Augustan formula provinciae as a civitas libera i t is tempting to ascribe
16
its only contemporary portrait-issue to a similar reconferment o f privilege. The
x
appearance at Sparta o f a single portrait-coin soon after Actium ? strongly suggests a
18
kindred occasion; the same, i n the province o f Crete and Cyrenaica, is true o f
10
Cydonia.
1
Cf. Head, HN. pp. 694 ff. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxxi n. 4(c).
1 4

2
Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 106. 5 Pliny, NH. iv, 26; cf. Larsen, l.c. p. 447.
X

3 Cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 701. 1 6

Athens (rev. tripod): of CAESAR DIVI F .
4
BM. 5 Wad. 3064. class.
6
Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 102; Broughton, l.c. p. BMC. 70; Weil, Ath. Mitt, vi, 1881, pp. 13,
729. 16; Kjellberg, Klio, xvn, 1921, p. 49.
7 These pieces may be classified here since the West, Corinth, vm, 2, 1931, pp. 46 ff., calls
1 8

League was 'free', but—since its cities were pre- Sparta a 'kingdom like the Cottian Alps'; but
sumably already 'free' within its structure—are not Eurycles's part on the coinage is always stricdy that
true liberatio coinages in the same sense as the issues of city-magistrate (client-kings regularly engrave
of Tlos and Myra. their portraits), and it is preferable to accept the
8
BMC. 9. 9 BMC. 11. decision of Volkmann, Munchener Beitrdge iur
10
Larsen, ES. iv, p. 446; cf. Dorsch, De civitatis Papyrusforschung, xxi, 1935, p. 170, that it was a
romanae apud Graecos propagatione, Diss. Breslau, civitas libera within the province.
1886, p. 28, correcting Kornemann 109 and Mitteis, x
* Of the coins of this 'free' city (Henze, De
Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den ostlichen Provinien, Civitatibus Liberis, p. 78) only a single group can be
p. 147 ri. 2. Cf. p. 404, n. 8. considered certainly Augustan (Naples, var. BMC.
11
BMC. 76; Gaebler, NG. 111, 2, pp. 38 ff. 34, Christ Church [Oxford], Svoronos, Crete
12
Of CAESAR DIVI F . class. 94—perhaps these constitute the habitual double
13
Pliny, NH. iv, 38; cf. Larsen, ES. iv, p. 449. foundation-coinage).
344 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
Finally, the province o f Syria-Cilicia adds three mintages to this category. The
1
single Cilician coin w i t h Augustus's head, at Aegeae, is extremely likely to have some
connection w i t h the liberation Gaza strikes an equally isolated piece dated to A.D. 5-63
to commemorate its detachment from the kingdom o f Archelaus to live within the
province as a civitas libera.* The remaining piece deserves a more detailed discussion.5
Its types are imitated from the official issues w i t h C A (p. 106): on the obverse is
6
A V G V S T . T R . P O T . , w i t h a laureate head to right, and on the reverse a wreath; but
added to C A are the letters AT ( P i . I V , 15)—sometimes i n very small letters?—or,
on a variant, TA. A n explanation o f C A . has been given above (p. 108). For the
8

abbreviation AT or TA a number o f interpretations have been hazarded, but all o f

them are far from satisfactory. Grueber's suggestion A(eTrrd) T(picc)9 is particularly
unfortunate. The Greek numeral for 'three' is T, not T ; i n any case, the ambiguity
between Tpicc and T&rcrapo: is inconceivable. The Greeks would not have permitted
such a confusion, i n defiance o f their numerical tradition, any more than we could
write ' F S ' for 'four shillings'. The interpretation o f T . A . on another coin as T(picc)
'A(cr<7dpia) is no better (p. 110). Nor can AT represent any known constitutional
formula.
10
I t only remains for i t to be a date i n some era. There is, however, no possibility that
A stands for A(VK&PC<S): the view that the ordinary year-symbol L is equivalent to
11
AVK&POCS has been abundantly disproved, so that even the remotest analogy for such a
use o f A has been eliminated. Accordingly, the date is not T (300), but AT (330). The
era cannot, however, be that o f the Seleucids (312 or 311)," since stylistic considera-
tions render a date so late as c. A.D. 18 improbable, and Latin issues o f the Julio-
Claudian period do not imitate the Greek omission o f O E O I by a corresponding neglect
o f D I V V S . For the same reason an era o f 311-310 used b y Ptolemy I I I and Ptolemy
1
TV * is out o f the question, while provenance and style also rule out the possibility o f
14
attribution to Citium, which reckoned from the same date. There could, moreover, be
no conceivable reason for the use o f the short-lived era o f Philip Arrhidaeus;^ nor is de
1
Berlin = M. S. vi, 2. 8, misattributed by 1 0
Froehner's interpretation as the number of
Muensterberg, Beamtennamen s.v., to Aegae in cities in the Commune Asiae (Milanges d'ipigraphie
Aeolis. The moneyer is Ari. et d*archiologie, xxii, p. 78) is based on an un-
2
Henze, De Civitatibus Liberis, p. 73. acceptable restoration of CA (p. 107).
3
BMC. 10. Year 66 by era from 61 B.C. (cf. 11
Cf. Foat,/#S. xxii, 1902, pp. 149 f.; Wilcken,
Gabae, founded by Marcius Philippus, Jones, Griechische Ostraka, p. 819. Regling, WMK.
CERP. p. 259). p. 121, s.v. Datierung.
4
Josephus, A], xvii, 11. 4; cf. Momigliano, " Abel, Revue biblique, 1938, p. 213.
CAH. x, p. 338; Henze, l.c. p. 77; Mommsen, St.R. 1 3
Bouch^-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, 1, p. 54
in, p. 707 n. 3. n. 3.
5 BMC. Imp. Aug. 742 ff., New York, Leningrad. 1 4
Ibid. p. 48 n. 1.
6
Not bare, pace BMC. l.c. 1 5
Ginzel, Handbuch der mathematischen und
7 Leningrad. 8
Berlin. technischen Chronologie, 1, p. 139; cf. Babyloniaca,
9 NC. 1904, pp. 208 ff. xv, 1935, p. 11.
 A U G U S T U S A S LIBERATOR OF 'FREE' COMMUNITIES 345
1
Saulcy justified i n inventing a local temple era to harmonise with his refuted theory
2
that C A represents 'Caesarea Area'. Eckhel makes a similar attempt to confirm his
equally false attribution to Caesarea Panias; but the era o f 334-333 which he con-
3 4
jectured has been eliminated successfully b y Dussaud. N o w the last-named is also
responsible for the discovery o f an era (unknown to the exhaustive survey o f K u b i -
5 6
tschek), whose existence and importance have since been shown by Abel. This is the era
of Alexander the Great (336)—not to be confused w i t h the popular description o f the
Seleucid era as the 'era o f Alexander*7—which was used by a number o f Phoenician
cities, including Tyre, Sidon, Ace and Aradus. The geographical and chronological
relevance o f this to the present coinage is clear: i t assigns the issue to the only region
appropriate to its style. The date, then, is 7-6 B.C.
A city-era recorded on a coin serves as its ethnic, and warrants the view that this is a
local series, albeit o f an unusual type. The formula C(aesaris) A(uctoritate) is no less
relevant to a local than to an official issue, even i f permission to coin was already at the
disposal o f the imperial legatus. The adaptation o f the well-known Latin types is likely
to be due to a special commemorative occasion. Since foundation-issues vastly pre-
dominate among coinages o f this character, i t is unlikely to be accidental that Sidon,
deprived o f its libertas since 20 B . C . , first recommences its silver issues i n 6-5?—a date
8

very suitable for its recovery o f 'freedom', which must have occurred during this
10
period. The conclusion that this exceptional aes piece, together w i t h the renewed silver
currency, celebrates the liberatio o f Sidon i n c. 6 B.C. is thus probable on historical
and numismatic grounds; moreover, if, as has been suggested, Q. Articuleius (?)
Regulus issued coinage for the newly 'enslaved' city (p. 126), there was particularly
good reason for the local authorities to wish for monetary record o f their subsequent
liberation. Particularly appropriate to the category o f liberatio coinages is the portrayal
of Augustus i n the role o f Alexander, whose era is so exceptionally used: Alexander was
11
the prince o f KTiaTca.
1
Annuaire de la Societe" de Numismatique, i n , 5
PW. 1, 632 ff.
1870, p. 259. 6
Revue biblique, 1938, p. 198.
2
DN. in, p. 339. 7
E.g. Michael Syrus (Chabot, Chronique de
3
Cf. Rouvier, Revue des dtudes grecques, 1899, Michel le Syrien, I, p. 116); Corpus Scriptor.
pp. 362 ff.; cf. Rn. 1903, pp. 239 ff.; cf. also Muller, Christian. Orient., Syri, ser. in, t. iv, p. 130.
Waddington, Pellerin, Droysen, and—doubtfully 8
Dio LIV, 7. 6; Suet. Aug. 47.
—Poole, BMC. Ptolemies, pp. lxxiv ff. 9 BMC. 113. 1 0
Honigmann, PW. 11, 2226.
4
Rn. 1908, pp. 445 ff., 453. 1 1
Cf. Jones, GC. pp. 2ff.
34<* THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PRINCEPS

D . A U G U S T U S A S CONSTITUTOR OF ' S T I P E N D I A R Y '

1
COMMUNITIES

Since the 'free' communities issued inauguratory coinages, i t would be very remark-
2
able i f the stipendiary cities—whose foundations played a large part i n official p o l i c y —
3
did not do likewise. They, too, had constitutions of their o w n , and constitutions whose
4
legal basis was not inferior: they were sometimes entided even to levy their own
6
customs-dues 5 and to conduct mutual agreements, celebrated by types o f Homonoia.?
Many o f their institutions, no less than those o f 'free' communities such as Leptis
Magna (p. 340), followed Roman models, and they were allowed to retain many o f their
8

own traditional customs.9 A more detailed analysis o f the grades o f privilege w i l l be

attempted elsewhere (pp. 401 ff.): here i t is only desired to point out that the stipendiary
cities wholly possessed the organism o f government which was expressed and cele-
brated by foundation-coinage. Indeed, since even bare annexation by Rome was, by
10
courtesy, considered an occasion for commemoration and a change o f era —even
warranting the title IXeudipios"—it is to be expected that interventions and reforms
by the princeps w i l l be recorded i n this way.
12
I t is therefore significant that Thaena issues bilingual coinage (the ethnic is Tainat
and the reverse-type a head o f Astarte) w i t h an early head o f Octavian inscribed
13
CAESAR D I V I F . This legend and this portrait occur at four neighbouring cities—
Hadrumetum, Achulla, Thapsus and Leptis Minor (p. 338). These commemorate
the accomplishment by Octavian o f a foundation-plan o f Julius; Leptis Minor, more-
over, is a peregrine city like Thaena. T w o further considerations indicate that this
coinage celebrates a similar occasion. First, Thaena must have had some such re-
foundation, since i t passed from royal territory into the hands o f Caesar and was
14
destroyed i n the process; secondly, every other city i n Africa which coins w i t h the
9
princeps head does so for a special commemorative purpose o f this kind. Thaena does
7
1
I.e. civitates iure stipendiario. E.g., in this period, Pergamum and Sardis
2
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 65. (BMC. Lydia, p. 275. 213). .
3
Ibid. pp. 117 f.; Last, CAH. xi, p. 436; Volkmann, 8
Cf. Jones, GC pp. 123, 171, 180.
Neue Jahrbucher fur Antike und deutsche Bildung, I, 9 Cf. Liebenam, St.V. 111, p. 467; Stevenson,
1938, pp. 16 ff. RPA. p. 165; Sherwin-White, p. 151.
4
Jones, Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939), 1 0
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 117.
p. 109, points out the only difference—that the 11
Cf. de Sanctis, Riv. difilologia, 1937, p. 342—
charters of stipendiary cities were not formulated the annexation of Egypt.
separately but incorporated in the lex provincial " Cf. Levy, Phbni(isches Worterbuch, p. 49.
5 Cf. Dessau, Hermes, xix, 1884, PP« 486 ff.;
1 3
Glasgow (Hu. 1820), Copenhagen, Hague:
Heichelheim, ES. iv, p. 250. Muller 11, p. 40. 4.
6
Cf. L . Weber, JIAN. xiv, 1911, pp. 109 ff.;
14
Strabo xvii, 831; cf. Broughton, p. 51 n. 33.
Broughton, ES. iv, p. 872.
 AUGUSTUS A N D 'STIPENDIARY* COMMUNITIES 347
1
not appear as a civitas libera i n the Augustan^orma/aprovinciae; and i t is not character-
istic o f Pliny to omit reference to that class o f community. But i t has been pointed out
that this sort o f inauguratory coinage is entirely appropriate to stipendiary cities.
A charter o f Thaena, as o f Thapsus and Achulla, was no doubt drawn up by Caesar;
but i t was not incorporated i n the lex provinciae until Octavian's government. Thaena's
new status was not libera, but i t was sufficiently high i n the 'infinite gradation' o f
3
privilege* for commemoration to be desirable. Indeed, a second piece (with an i n -
4
competent portrait), on which the Latin legend is omitted, actually bears witness to
the well-documented custom o f making a supplementary issue from the balance o f the
foundation-fund (p. 291). The existence o f this coin confirms our conclusion that
the civitas stipendiaria o f Thaena imitated its betters b y celebrating w i t h coinage its
constitutor Octavian.
Another bilingual issue, w i t h I M P . A V G . P. P. and a late portrait o f Augustus, has,
beside the head o f Astarte, the neo-Punic ethnic SthdsrJ The types recall the coins o f
Hadrumetum, and, when i t is recollected that the initial letter, on coins o f Carthage,
means 'belonging t o ' / i t is clear that the town named is Thysdrus.? This too was a
Julian foundation, but i n the form o f a colonia Iulia? The neo-Punic ethnic, however, is
wholly incompatible w i t h an enfranchised status. N o r can the colony have been
10
Latin,9 since Pliny describes the city as libera —an epithet wholly applicable to posses-
sion o f full citizenship, but not to Latinitas 1 moreover, only a single town o f this rank
is known i n Africa at this time," and Pliny could not have missed another. A double
community is out o f the question, since there would be no parallel or constitutional
probability for coinage b y the virtually subject peregrine half (only) o f one o f these
(p. 404). A t the only double community where the peregrine section possibly coins,
Emporiae, the Roman settlement (p. 154) not only coins simultaneously but appears soon
to exclude the peregrine m i n t : " moreover, that was not a colony but a municipium. I t
is necessary to conclude that, before this coin was struck, the colony at Thysdrus had
failed like other Julian colonies at Heraclea Pontica and Dyme (pp. 254, 265). N o w
since, b y every analogy, this issue was commemorative—here again there is the signi-
13
ficant second issue (with A V G V S T V S , Capricorn and Punic ethnic ), but no other—
1
NH. v, 25. Muller, 11, p. 58, realised this in spite of his mis-
7

* Jones, Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939), reading. The metathesis of sr presents no difficulty,
p. 109. For other views vide Judas, Rn. 1856, p. 167; Levy,
3
'It kept whatever organisation it had* (Brough- Ph6nv(isches Worterbuch, p. 45; Wilmanns, CIL.
ton, p. 51) is probably an understatement. vm, p. 12; Head, HN. p. 876—all missing the D .
4
Hague: Muller 11, p. 40. 2; Judas, Rn. 1856, CIL. vi, 3884, XII, 686; Broughton, p. 49.
8

p. no. As suggested by Kubitschek, Imp. p. 158.

9

5 Paris: Muller 11, p. 58. 35, Suppl. p. 43. 1 0

NH.v,yo.
E . S. G . Robinson informs me that the letter sup- Uzalis: cf. Broughton, p. 51.
1 1
" Hill, p. 37.
posed by Muller to be a P is a D . Hague, Stockholm, Constantine: Muller 11,
1 3

6
Muller 11, p. 80. E . S. G . Robinson confirms p. 58. 36; Hinglais, Recueil de la Soc. arch, du dip.
this. de Constantine, xxxvin, 1904, p. 186.
348 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
there is every probability that i t celebrates the grant of a new constitution following the
dissolution of the colony. During the existence o f the latter, the peregrine community
had no doubt been relegated to the inferior capacity o f a pagus: b y these coins i t
celebrated its return to full urban rank as a civitas. Since there is no evidence o f
1
'freedom', i t may be assumed to have been stipendiary. The return o f such Roman
citizens as remained to the status of a conventus (p. 403), instead of a colony subordinating
the peregrine community, was a good cause for commemorative coinage by the latter.
Manifestly i n the same category o f stipendiary foundation-issues are the mintages,
w i t h Augustus's head and name, of eight newly established communities i n Asia. One
of these (Pi. X , 70) shows an interesting intermediate phase i n the regular process o f
2

transition from tribe to city. The signature of Lycidas the son of Euxenus is accompanied
by the ethnic EYKAPI7ITIKOY. The tribe o f the Corpeni i n Phrygia, by a customary
Hellenisation o f their barbaric name, called their capital Eucarpia: but this was only
3
one of the four cities into which the tribe later split. A t this stage—the portrait-model
is o f the 'Patricia' class*—the four are still combined; but they have substituted for
their primitive tribal designation that o f the Eucarpitic district, a provisional political
unit. A similar process o f evolution is illustrated b y three coins, inseparable for
stylistic reasons, o f Nicaea Qlbianorum i n Lydia:
(1) I E B A I T O I laureate head o f Augustus r.—[N!]KAIE0)N as last.*
(2) KAIIAP ZEB. NIKAIE03N head o f Augustus r . — r A I O N AEYKION KAIZAPEZ
(sic) heads o f Caius and Lucius to right (Pi. X I , 42). 6

(3) TAIOI AEYKfOI? heads as on last—APATOZ TPAMMATEYZ KIABIANOON

8
NEIKAIAZ Demos standing l .
(1) and (2) are both unpublished. A . H . M . Jones, who notes that the Lower
Cilbiani inaugurate their coinage, presumably as a new unit,9 as ' the Cilbiani about
10
Nicaea'—other coins have fTEPI NEIKAIAN —attributes the fully developed urban
ethnic N[E]IKAIEd)N to the second century." Indeed, this advance under Augustus
was evidently premature, since not long after this date the community reverts to
1
the purely tribal style o f KiApiocvol TCOV KCXTCO; * and subsequent coins adhere for
many years, w i t h minor variations, to the titulature o f (3). Whatever the cause o f
13

this retrogression, i t is clear that (1) and (2) celebrate the ephemeral urbanisation.
(3), whose portrait is later than that of (1), apparently commemorates the reconstitution
1
The libertas of Pliny, I.e., refers to the colonial hagen, Athens. Imhoof-Blumer, NZ. 1888, p. 9. 8.
status which had now ceased. Misread by M. S. VII, 95.
* Winterthur, var. BMC. 13. ' Cf. Broughton, l.c. p. 704.
3 Jones, CERP. p. 66; Broughton, ES. iv, p. 701. 1 0
Cf. Head, HN. p. 649.
4 BMC. Imp. Aug. 376. 1 1
CERP. pp. 78 f.; cf. Denkschriften d. Ak. f.
5 Cast at Winterthur. Wissenschaften in Wien, LVH, no. 67.
6
Hague (misattributed to Nicaea in Bithynia). " Ath. Mitt. 1894, pp. 102 ff.; cf. Jones, l.c.
7 A E Y K I O N (sic) at Vienna. p. 398 n. 84.
8
Wad. 4945, Vienna, Munich, Berlin, Copen- 1 3
BMC. 1 ff.
 AUGUSTUS A N D 'STIPENDIARY' COMMUNITIES 349
1
on a semi-tribal basis. Pliny's record o f the' Cilbiani Inferiores' indicates either that the
urbanisation occurred too late for the Agrippan statistics^ or that the retrograde step
was early enough to be recorded i n them. I n view o f the types, the former conclusion
is perhaps preferable.
Less eventful was the evolution o f two other tribes, the Caystriani and Epicteteis,
whose conversion into cities was announced by portrait-issues (entirely isolated) at
Hypaepa (Pi. X , 67) and Aezanis (Pi. X , 62)3 respectively. Such organisation as
2

4
Hypaepa had possessed, during the Republic had not enabled i t to supersede its tribe
6
as a coining authority.* The change occurred i n time for the Agrippan list, and the
'Caesaraugusta' portrait-model? suggests attribution to the late twenties B . C . —
perhaps to the time o f Augustus's visit i n c. 21-19. The s a m e s
date * probable for the
constitutio o f Aezanis, whose coin—with the ethnic EZEANIT6i)N found also on a
8
few 'autonomous' pieces o f the same issue —uses an Eastern portrait-model o f c.
20 B.C.9 This city also, like others o f the six into which the Epicteteis were converted, 10

is recorded by Pliny." Another tribe too, the Sibliani, mark a political advance by
issuing their first c o i n , " which is not repeated under Augustus; they may likewise have
obtained a completely urban administration.^ The ethnic ZIBAIANGuN is accompanied
by the name o f a local dignitary (Callicles the son o f Callistratus), as at the cities.
The portrait is o f an ideal type which is discussed elsewhere (p. 357). T o Augustus's
residence may also be ascribed the organisation o f Dioshieron and Heraclea Salbace,
and the celebration o f each by a single portrait-issue (Pis. X , 64, X I , 34 * ) , whose
14 5

models, o f t h e ' Caesaraugusta' a n d ' East I I ' 7 classes respectively, again accord w i t h
16 x

the literary debut o f the cities i n Pliny's list. A subsequent phase o f K r i c r u a , probably
18

in the governorship o f Agrippa, is illustrated b y the single Augustan mintage—from a

'Patricia' m o d e l — o f Trapezopolis (Pi. X I , 46) which likewise appears now i n
10 20

history for the first time."

The isolated and commemorative character o f these eight Asian mintages is obscured
by the current attribution to the principate o f Augustus o f many coins whose real date
is much later (p. 334). The present issues bear witness to an important aspect o f the
princeps activity. He did not found Roman colonies i n the East (p. 306); but he founded
9

a number o f peregrine stipendiary cities, by the synoecism arid urbanisation o f less

developed communities." His unwillingness to associate Romans w i t h Greeks did not
1
NH. v, 120. 2
Paris; cf. M. iv, 71. 386. NH v, 105.
1 1

3
Wad. 5541. Berlin, MG. 411. 150.
12

4
Cf. Appian, Mith. 48; Cicero, Ad Quintum Broughton, p. 704; pace Jones, CERP. p. 71.
1 3

fratrem, I, 2. 14; Jones, CERP. p. 61. Wad. i960.

1 4
5 BMC. 18. x

5 Cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 701. BMC. Imp. Aug. 340.

1 6
Ibid. 664(?). 1 7

6
NH. v, 120. 7
BMC. Imp. Aug. 339. NH. v, 120, 109: cf. Jones, CERP. pp. 77 f.;
1 8

8
BMC. 1, 2, Munich, Vienna, KM. 1. Noi^on Broughton, ES. iv, p. 704.
subsequent coinage. 9
BMC. Imp. Aug. 700. BMC. Imp. Aug. 387.
1 9
BMC. 9. 2 0

1 0
Strabo xii, 8. 576; cf. Jones, CERP. p. 60; Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 77.
3 1

Broughton, ES. iv, p. 701. Id. GC. pp. 65 f.

2 2
350 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
lead him to deny the latter his beneficence as K T I O T T I S . Further evidence o f this policy
w i l l be obtained from a foundation-coinage, honouring P. Vedius Pollio, o f Tralles—
refounded as Caesarea after Actium (p. 383). This introduces a second category, o f
cities which were not founded b y him for the first time, but given a new constitution
and lease o f life. The stipendiary foundation-issues i n Africa (p. 346) belong to this class:
so do single Augustan mintages at Amorium (Pi. X , 56) and G b y r a — k n o w n to have
1 2

been re-established at this time —whose portrait-models o f c. 17 B . C . again suggest

3 4

ascription to the proconsulate o f Agrippa. I t is significant that all the ten cities o f Asia,
whose inauguratory portrait-issues o f Augustus have been mentioned, belong to the
comparatively undeveloped and un-Hellenised interior o f the province. So do Sebaste
and Metropolis, whose creation at the same time 5 is not recorded b y foundation-
coinage. This was a policy which Augustus took over from Antony, whose refounda-
tion of Eumenia as Fulvia* is celebrated by an issue (signed b y Smertorix the son o f
Philonides) w i t h her portrait i n the guise o f Nike ( P i . X I , 52).7 The analogy o f this
8
coin suggests that Amorium and Philomelium, whose issues w i t h similar heads have
escaped notice, were likewise reconstituted by Antony. I n this respect, then, he was
heir to the Hellenistic founder-monarchs i n these regions,? and Augustus followed his
lead.
I n the colonial and municipal series, the identification o f a number o f foundation-
issues, often by fortuitous indications, made i t necessary to ask how many other
uninformative-looking pieces belonged to the same category. Here the same problem
must be faced. Particularly suggestive o f this character is a large group o f pieces w i t h
portraits o f Augustus, and apparently o f his lifetime, whose nearest successors i n the
same class do not occur until later principates: all the ten stipendiary foundation-
issues o f Augustus that have been discussed are equally isolated. He repeated Antony's
foundation at A m o r i u m : w h y , then, should the single portrait-issue o f another
10
Phrygian city Eumenia (from a Lugdunese model") not represent another reform o f
an Antonian constitution? Augustus's marked activity i n the same region makes i t
difficult to believe that lone coinages at Hydrela," Prymnessus, Acmonia (Pi. X , 6 1 )
13 14

x
do not refer to similar occasions; and a similar mintage by Apollonia Salbace 5 recalls
the foundation-piece o f its neighbour Heraclea (p. 349).
1
Naples, var. BMC. 23, Capitoline. Fulvia, cf. Fortsch, Wiiriburger Studien %ur Alter-
2
Paris ('uncertain'). [ K I B Y P J A T C O N , Pallas r. tumswissenschaft, v, 1935, pp. 108 ff.
3
Cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 714. IGRR. iv, 619, 7 Paris; cf. BMC. 20-21, Rome; Gazette
referring to an earlier foedus, does not justify its in- archdologique, 1, 1875, P« 3 «
I2

8
elusion among the cities which were free at this Karlsruhe, Paris (de Ricci), respectively,
time (as ibid. p. 706). 9
Cf. Jones, GC. pp. 15, 17. 1 0
BMC. 36.
4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 669, etc. " BMC. Imp. Aug. 536(F).
5 Cf. Jones, CERP. pp. 71 f.; Broughton, l.c. 1 2
Berlin, KM. 1: ideal style.
p. 701. 1 3
BMC. 18-19; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 3<So(?).
6
Cf. Waddington, Voyage en Asie mineure, 14
BMC. 31; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 700.
p. 149; Broughton, l.c On the importance of x
* Berlin, KM. 2: ideal style.
 AUGUSTUS A N D 'STIPENDIARY' COMMUNITIES 351
Equally exceptional portrait-issues i n other parts o f the province may well have the
same purpose. Models suggesting Augustus's second visit are found at the stipendiary
cities o f Adramyttium (Pi. X , 66) and Magnesia ad Maeandrum (Pi. X , 55);* the
1

period o f the amiciprincipis is suited by those at Colophon (Pi. X I , 27)3 and Iasus; 4

later are those o f Tabae (Pi. X I , 31)5 and Scepsis. O f an ideal character (p. 357) are
6

heads on the sole Augustan portrait-issues o f Assus (Pi. X I , 2i),7 Bargylia (PL X I ,
14), Miletus (Pi. X I , 43), and Tenedus. Original or unidentifiable are the isolated
8 0 10

12 14 1
portraits at Alinda," M y r i n a , Phocaea,^ Pitane and Temnus, * all likewise
stipendiary communities.
H o w many o f these are foundation-issues i t is impossible to say; probably most o f
16
them. A familiar, topic adds w i t h the strongest probability at least three names to the
fist. The 'free' cities o f Leptis Minor and Oea (pp. 338, 339) demonstrated that the
custom o f issuing a second coinage from the foundation-fund was not limited to
Roman cities; and stipendiary Thaena and Thysdrus (pp. 346, 347) have shown that i t
was not limited to the 'free'. I t is therefore highly suggestive that Antiochia ad
Maeandrum, Apamea, and Euromus issue two coinages under Augustus, and two alone :
and that i n each case the two portrait-models are very close i n date—coincidences
otherwise inexplicable. Thus Antiochia imitates two different types of head, both found
1
on Lugdunese denarii w i t h C. L . Caesar'es; ^ Apamea uses divergent models o f the
'Patricia' class ( P i . X , 68, 6 9 ) ; and, most arrestingly o f all, Euromus (Pi. X , 60)
lS 10

patronises two quite different models, o f Eastern and 'Patricia' classes, which are,
20
however, closely connected i n date. These curious pairs are, as one might expect, not
restricted to cities whose sole coinage they constitute. Sardes, also (Pi. X I , 6), provides
21
two different portraits o f the' Patricia' class, and Clazomenae two slightly earlier ones
22
of the 'East I I ' group. I n each case these are the first Augustan portrait-issues o f
the city, and at Clazomenae the princeps is actually called KTfcrrris. A t Hierapolis a
1
Oxford, NC. 1935, p. 199; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 14
Wad. 991.
330. J
5 BMC. 24, 27.
2
Berlin, KM. iy; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 679(?). 1 6
But not necessarily all: e.g. Samos, Cos have
3
Berlin, ZfN. 1885, p. 315; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. isolated issues which do not commemorate founda-
519. tions.
4
Copenhagen, M. S. VII, 343. 506; cf. BMC. Kar. M. 12, KM. 14: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug.
17

Imp. Aug. 472(?). 538; and GM. 40: cf. ibid. 543 (approx.).
5 BM, KM. 1; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 519. Cambridge,KM. 14,and Wad. tfoo.KM. 13a.
1 8

6
Copenhagen (capricorn)—wrongly attributed BMC. 139.
1 9

to Trajan! Cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 508. 2 0

BM (AYrVZTOS—sic): cf. BMC. Imp. Aug.
7
Paris, M. 11, 523. 58. 702; BMC. 7, clumsily copied from BMC. Imp.
8
Wad. 2284; MG* 28. Aug. 408, etc.
9
Berlin, M. in, 167. 773. BMC. 97: cf* BMC. Imp. Aug. 413, etc.;
2 1

1 0
Cast at Winterthur, MG. p. 70. BMC. 103: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 418, etc.
11
BMC. 11; KM. 4. s BM: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. &7y,BMC. 118 (and
2 2

1 2
Avignon (head of Zeus). BMC. 117, barbarous?): cf. BMC. Imp. Aug.
13
BMC 131. 68o(?).
352 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
'Caesaraugusta* portrait is closely followed by a 'Patricia* type (Pi. X I , 7).* These
1

six cities are very probably celebrating a constitutio b y Augustus w i t h a double

coinage, o f which so many examples have been met w i t h elsewhere (p. 291). Perhaps
in the same category is Pergamum (Pi. X I , 29), which launches its portrait-coinage
3

with no less than three different portraits from late Lugdunese denarii.*
Nor, o f course, is there any reason why other stipendiary towns which strike more
than one portrait-coin under Augustus should not (like many Roman cities equally
well represented) have opened their series with a foundation issue. I n particular, a
group o f pieces imitating the earliest post-Actian prototypes may well allude to the
reforms o f that time. These are provided by Abydus (Pi. X , 51),5 Dardanus (Pi. X , 54)/
7 8 9
Laodicea, Smyrna and Teos. Laodicea may, like Cos, commemorate its reconstruc-
tion after an earthquake, which destroyed it in c. 20 B . C . Somewhat later new portrait-
1 0

coinages, and so perhaps new constitutions, are inaugurated at Ephesus (Pi. X , 6 3 ) 11

13
and Erythrae," and then Elaea.
But safer ground is reached in the provinces round Asia—Bithynia-Pontus, Macedonia-
Moesia, Achaia, Galatiaand the Cilician section of Syria. I n spite of an infinity of attribu-
tions, only thirteen stipendiary mints i n all these provinces together have contemporary
portrait-coinage o f Augustus; and, very significantly, this is i n every case limited to
a single issue. Again there is the strongest presumption of a uniform commemorative
occasion, namely the presentation o f a new status by the princeps. This conclusion
14
is fortunately confirmed by the only two coinages o f this type i n Bithynia-Pontus —

Wad. 6153: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 315 (?).

1 12
BMC. 255 ff.: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 342(??).
BMC. 97 is a heroic version of BMC. Imp.
2 13
Paris (ETTI N A P . ) , apparently influenced by
Aug. 362, etc. BMC. Imp. Aug. 660-4.
3 14
The freedom of this city under Caesar (Robert, Among those to be eliminated, in this province,
Anatolian Studies to Buckler, 1939, p. 228; cf. Segre, are: Amasia (Rec. 6; cf. Berlin, attributed by Bosch
Athenaeum, xxvi, 1938, p. 127; Passerini, ibid, xxv, [MS.] to Augustus), own collection shows Y
1937, pp. 252 ff.) does not seem to have continued Z E B A Z T O Y — h e a d is of Tiberius or Claudius;
under Augustus (cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 701). Neocaesarea (M. 11, 352. 118, etc.) to Philadelphia;
4
BMC. 239-241: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 5io(?). Prusias ad Hypium (M. S. v, 236. 1390). Jones
BMC. 238: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 521. BMC. 236- (CERP. p. 164; cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 715) uses
237: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 519. a coin—now lost—from the Stroganoff collection
5 Wad. 1065: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 599. with Z E B A Z T O I (bare head to right) and
6
BM, Wad. 1134, NC. 1920, p. 20: cf. BMC. K A I I A P E G 3 N T O O N E N B E I 0 Y N 1 A V. (caduceus)
Imp. Aug. 653(?). (quoted by Boutkowski, DN. 1802 and repeated
7
BMC. 151: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 65o(?). by Imhoof-Blumer, GM. 599. 115) to prove that
8
BMC. 253: cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 647(0- the Caesarea-Germanica was a refoundation of a
9 Paris ='M. 111, 1497, var. BMC. 68: cf. BMC. city already founded by Augustus; but even if
Imp. Aug. 647(F). the coin was not false, or misread in his usual
1 0
Suet. 77. 8; cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 601. way by Boutkowski, it is far more probably post-
11
Philon and Euthycrates (Rome, KM. 49) are humous. Its denomination (27 mm.) is larger than
the only magistrates to provide true 'Caesar- any Asiatic city-issue of Augustus but equal to
augusta' portraits. those of Claudius at Caesarea-Germanica (Moscow
 AUGUSTUS A N D 'STIPENDIARY' COMMUNITIES 353
1
at Nicaea and Nicomedia;* here the occasion can be certainly identified. These
3
isolated pieces are ascribed to 29-28 B . C . b y the name o f Thorius Flaccus pro cos.
(p. 384). N o w i t was at this very date that Nicaea and Nicomedia received new life
4
and rights b y their choice as the headquarters for the new KOIVOV BeiOwiccs. Neither
town coins again during the whole o f Augustus's principate, and these are his only
contemporary portraits i n Bithynia. Such a geographical and chronological coincidence
cannot be fortuitous. The coins are 'foundation'-issues o f Nicaea and Nicomedia as
capitals o f the Commune Bithyniae, just as Myra (?) and Tlos had coined to celebrate
their promotion i n the newly established 'free' Commune Lyciae (p. 342).
A very close parallel is provided b y t w o excessively rare, and almost unknown,
portrait-coinages o f the Euxine Hexapolis, i n the Moesian section of provincia Mace-
donia. A n apparently unique piece o f Odessus has Augustus's head to right and a
cornucopiae i n wreath, w i t h OAHZIT.5 A second coin has identical types, but
6
AnOAACONlATOON; and the portrait is inscribed ZEBAZTOZ. Exact similarity i n
style, as well as type, to the coin o f Odessus disposes o f Mionnet's attribution to
7
Illyrian Apollonia, and allows none o f the other cities o f that name to be preferred to
the Euxine port Apollonia Pontica. The occasion o f coinage is, therefore, happily
identifiable. The KOIVOV o f Greek settlements on this coast was reorganised under a
8
Pontarch by Augustus: and a conspicuous feature o f the reform was the inclusion, for
the first time, of Apollonia, which made the original Pentapolis into a Hexapolis.9 This,
then, was, without a doubt, the occasion which inspired these exceptional issues. The
coin o f Odessus no doubt refers to the elevation o f that city to the Presidency, already
10
suggested b y Blaramberg. Here are two issues advertising the principate at the
farthest fringes o f Hellenism.
Four, then, o f the thirteen stipendiary portrait-coinages now under discussion
demonstrably celebrate a promotion o f their city: and, since the others are equally
isolated, the presumption that they belong to the same category is strengthened. I n the
11
same province as the Euxine Hexapolis was Edessa (KAIZAP ZEBAZTOZ). The
small procuratorial province o f the Thracian Chersonese" is represented b y Sestus
13
(ZEBAZTOZ), which is no doubt commemorating w i t h this issue—unrepeated until
14
Caligula—its establishment as the regional metropolis. Elsewhere i n the Balkans
=cast at Winterthur, cf. Rec. 1; variant at Christ 7
S. 111, 321. 1736.
Church with T E P M A N N I K O Z [sic] K A I Z A P E 0 3 N ) .
8
Cf. Keil, CAH. xi, p. 574.
1
Moscow, Oxford, Hollschek coll., cast at 9 Cf. Danoff, Klio, xxxi, 1938, pp. 436 ff.
Winterthur =Rec. 13. 2
BMC. 5, Wad. 10. 1 0
Cf. Boeckh, CIG. 2056c, p. 79. Tomis was later
3
Additions to the Nicaean series, M. 11, 80. 405 the President, but its portrait-coinage does not
and Rec. 16, are due to total misreadings and mis- begin until Tiberius (Sofia, own collection),
understandings. 1 1
BMC. 16.
4
Dio L I , 20. 6; cf. Nock, CAH. x, p. 485. 1 2
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 84.
5
Sofia: Moushmov, Zto. 1929, p. 153 (illustrated). 1 3
Berlin, Istanbul; cf. Head, HN. p. 261.
6
Glasgow, Paris, Vienna (2), Copenhagen; cf. 1 4
Jones, l.c.
von Schlosser, Altgriechische Mun^en, p. 35.
354 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
1
peregrine portrait-coinage is strangely limited to three little island-towns, all o f which
represent Augustus w i t h the same legend—and never again portray a princeps. The
3
status o f t w o o f these, Imbrus* and Peparethus, was curiously anomalous. Both were
4
still members o f the 'free* Athenian Empire —their coinage does not justify the
supposition o f a temporary 'autonomy' 5—but presumably, wherever their taxes went,
each was attached to the higher supervision o f its nearest governor, the procurator
6
o f the Chersonese and the proconsul o f Achaia respectively. The coins may be sup-
posed to commemorate a constitutio o f these island-cities and a revision o f the Athenian
' E m p i r e ' i n general, undertaken b y Augustus during his visit to Athens, i n 20.?
Similar to them i n size and obverse type is an equally rare piece o f Myconus —the 8

next is o f Domitian—whose status i n the province o f Achaia was perhaps regulated b y

the princeps at the same date.
provincia Galatia misattributions
In have multiplied so exceedingly that the nine
cities, o f which contemporary portrait-coinage o f Augustus has been quoted, do not
include t w o o f the only three at which this is actually found.* O f these three, Aspendus
1 0
— w i t h no legend but A I — i s on the coast o f Pamphylia; the remaining t w o , B u b o n "

1
In spite of many misattributions besides those 5
As by Graindor, Athenes sous Auguste, pp.
based on iconography: e.g. Boutkowski (DN. 2082) 4, 8.
quotes a coin of Delos from the Canino collection, 6
Including Thessaly; cf. (ending a long contro-
adding that this passed to the Uffizi cabinet. versy) Keil, CAH. xi, p. 567; Larsen, ES. iv,
A. Minto, the Director of this, has kindly searched pp. 437 f. Cf. p. 269 for Epirus.
the collection, and catalogues of all periods, and is Cf. Graindor, l.c. pp. 39, i9ff.
7

(as he states in a letter of 25 Sept. 1937) still unable Athens, Paris: Svoronos, BCH. X V I I , 18,
8

to trace the coin. Probably it was dismissed long p. 455; M. 11, 320.
ago as a mistaken attribution or a forgery: it is 9
Besides purely iconographic errors, the wrongly
suspicious that the same type, a lyre, appears at attributed coinages fall into the following categories:
Abydus. Rogers, Ancient Coinage ofThessaly, 361, (1) On coins of Sagalassus (Wad. 3821, T A I O Z
misattributes to the Thessalian Magnetes a coin K A I Z A P and head of Caligula), and Side (own
whose style, type and denomination all point to collection; cf. M. iv, 477. 184, reading [ K A A J Y A I O Z
Magnesia ad Maeandrum (PI. X , 55; cf. correctly K A I Z A P ) attributed to Augustus, the tides of
Imhoof-Blumer, KM. 23). Wace, JHS. 1906, later principes have escaped notice. (2) Mistaken
pp. 165 ff. 1, rightly queries the attribution to readings of ethnics are responsible for attributions
Augustus of a coin of the same Thessalian mint— to Perga (M. iv, 461. 32: of Tanagra), Etenna
the head is Caligulan and the inscription [l~AIO]Z (Muller, Thorvaldsen Cat. p. 274. 170; Boutkowski,
ZEBAZTOZ. A piece at Dresden attributed to DN. 2806: reads E T E I N . , not E T E N . , and is an
Melos is a badly preserved colonial coin of Corinth. official issue of Tiberius [cf. GM. 759]), and
Heads at Chalcis are not of Augustus but of gover- Pessinus (Rb. i860, p. 21: of Adramyttium).
nors (p. 385). I hope to show in a later work that (3) Official issues of T . Helvius Basila leg. under
an Aeginetan coin represents not Augustus, but a Tiberius have wrongly been considered city-
legatus of Tiberius. coinages of Ancyra (M. S. vn, 633.10) and Pessinus
2
BM, Berlin, Athens (Postolacca, Cat. p. 163), (GM. 759, GR. Mik. 228. 1) under Augustus (see
Sofia: Chaix, Choix des monnaies grecques, p. 125. above, p. 328).
3
Glasgow=Hu. i, p. 460. 4. 1 0
Istanbul: KM. 48.
4
Cf. Last, CAH. xi, p. 559. 1 1
BMC. 2.
 AUGUSTUS A N D 'STIPENDIARY' COMMUNITIES 355
1
and Termessus-Oenoanda (TEP.OI.) are both i n Cabalis, o f which all but Cibyra was,
2
like Pamphylia, allotted to the new province. A change o f province habitually brought
a change o f rights, and that is the reason for these isolated issues. I n particular, the
ouptiroAiTeia o f Termessus minor and Oenoanda, first published by these coins, dates
from this occasion.3 Termessus apparently predominated, and the issue bears its type
4
of a horse, imitated from the mother-city i n Pisidia. These three portrait-issues, like
those of the Euxine towns, bear witness to a few outposts o f Hellenism on the fringe o f
a province still generally tribal.* They, like the rest, are evidence o f the use o f such
coinages as vehicles for the popularisation o f the new order. These large categories o f
peregrine foundation-issues—like their counterparts at Roman cities—are imposing
evidence o f the princeps wish that constitutiones should be published by numisma
portrayal o f his head. These portrayals played a vital part i n the propaganda o f his
6
government.
1 6
Munich, Brussels, Berlin, Istanbul. Not a date T o this category may tentatively be attributed
01 (as Boutkowski, DN. 2788—misread or tooled), isolated portrait-issues at Irippo (Vives, pi. C X , 2)
since the same letters appear at later periods. and Laelia (ibid. pi. CIII, 2). But since both imitate
2
Jones, CERP. pp. 106, 405 n. 15. models of about 20-18 B . C (BMC. Imp. Aug. 679,
3 Ibid. pp. 108, 407 n. 20. 681), they may merely commemorate Augustus's
4 Cf. BMC. 3 ff. of Termessus major. visit in c. 15-14, like issues of Roman cities in the
5 Cf. Jones, CERP. pp. 120, 146. province (p. 220).
356 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS

E. A U G U S T U S A S K T I Z T H Z A N D 9 E 0 Z EFNcDANHI

The analogy o f the Roman communities is very close. He was not only conditor but
1 2
KTIOTTIS: he is expressly so called on several coinages, and this is his role at every
peregrine city whose coinage has been discussed. Moreover, just as, by an easy
transition, he became universal conditor (p. 318), so too he became KTicmis "rfjs
otKou|jevr|s. His title eAeuSeptos is particularly relevant to the liberatio coinages. T o
3 4

these roles his imperium does not contribute. But the conceptions o f clientela an
patrocinium were not at home i n the Greek world,* where the implications o f KTICTUOC
6 7
went farther. Here Augustus was the heir to Alexander, the Diadochi, Pompey, and
Caesar; and i t was his policy to allow the continuance o f local tradition i n such matters.
A guide to the whole group o f peregrine coinages hitherto discussed is the con-
sideration that, as KTicnris, he was Oeos: indeed, this was the foremost manifestation
8
o f ruler-worship. Greek founders were the object o f extensive cult-celebration,? and
10
the Olympian gods themselves were often called KTICTTTIS.
I n the light o f this conclusion we may examine a remarkable group o f portraits—
many o f them on foundation-issues—which are not imitated from any official model,
11
but resemble most closely those o f the 'candelabrum' class o f aurei and denarii. A n
investigation o f some o f these portraits, whose accompanying legends identify them
w i t h Caius, Lucius and Tiberius as Caesar (p. 471), reveals the paradox that many o f
them show not the least relation to the features o f those princes, but have a singularly
close relationship to each other. They also recall a long series o f representations o f
12 13
Rome and the Senate —apparently inaugurated i n this principate at Pergamum.
Most arresting are heads o f Caius at Hierapolis (e.g. Pi. X I , 12) and Tripolis (Pi. X I ,
14

2o), 5 and o f Tiberius at Acmonia (Pi. X I , 13) and Antiochia ad Maeanckum. T o the
J 16 17

1
For the correspondence of the two terms vide 1 0
Cf. Prehn, PW. 11, 2084.
Nepos xx, 3. 2; Skard, Festskrift til Koht, p. 58 11
BMC. Imp. Aug. 683; cf. CR. 1944, pp. 46 ff.
n. 2. 1 2
Cf. Dieudonne\ Melanges numismatiques, ie sir.,
2
Cf. Reinach, Rev. arch. 1916, p. 344. 11, p. 133 n. 2, Magie, De Romanorum vocabulis, I,
3 Cf. Charlesworth, Harvard Theological Review, pp. 4f., correcting Eckhel, DN. iv, p. 190, de
xxvm, 1935, p. 26. Witte, Rn. 1862, pp. 106 ff. Deification of Rome
4
IG. xn, 166; cf. de Sanctis, Rivista difilologia, dates from the early part of the second century
1937, P- 340. B . C : cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 122; Sherwin-White,
5 Cf. Hammond, AJP. 1938, p. 486. p. 167.
6
Cf. Jones, GC. pp. 6ff. '3 BM (Cephalion).
7
Cf. Wendland, Zeitschrift fur neu testamentliehe
14
Wad. 6144.
Wissenschaft, v, 1904, p. 341.
x
5 Berlin, M. iv, 393. 521.
8
Cf. Nock, CAH. x, p. 482. Signs of this have
1 6
Munich, Oxford, Nier coll.; M. iv, 198.19 (var.
already been noted at the Roman cities (p. 318). Paris, different portrait).
9 Cf. Eitrem, PW. vm, 1136.
1 7
Copenhagen, M. iv, 316. 77.
 A U G U S T U S A S K T I I T H Z A N D 0 E O I EFTIOANHZ 357
1
lean physiognomies o f the two Caesars this idealistic conception is entirely alien.
But i t is not restricted to the relatives o f the princeps: most remarkable o f all is its
frequent reproduction w i t h reference to Augustus himself, and accompanied b y the
legend I E B A I T O I . This occurs on the probable foundation-issues o f Apollonia
Salbace, Assus (Pi. X I , 21), Bargylia (Pi. X I , 14), Hydrela, Miletus (Pi. X I , 43),
Siblia and Tenedus, and on coins not certainly to be included i n this category at
Abydus (Pi. X I , 22),* Cyzicus (Pi. X I , 15,3 254), Ephesus,5 Hierapolis (Pi. X I , 16, 6

17,7 18 ), Hypaepa, I l i u m , Laodicea" and Mylasa.

8 0 10 12

These issues—particularly those o f Hierapolis—make i t clear that not the least

differentiation is attempted between portraits labelled 'Cams' and those labelled
'Augustus', and that not the least attention is paid to the actual features o f either. N o r
can the youthful heads described as Augustus be intended to recall his appearance as a
boy, since this was quite different.^ This portraiture is essentially impersonal, and
14
completely neglects individual traits. Similar examples o f unrealistic youthful heads
1
are provided, not only b y the 'candelabrum' series with A V G V S T . , * but b y some
16 17 18
Syro-Judaean portraits, a garnet at New Y o r k , a colossal head at Leptis Magna,
1
and some lead tesserae. ? None o f these is a portrait i n the ordinary sense o f the term.
20
Their explanation is suggested by a colossal Augustan statue in the Vatican, whose
boyish but impersonal features belong to precisely the same category. The veil and
21
cornucopiae which there appear are symbols o f the Genius Augusti; and youthful

1
E.g. statues from the Corinthian Basilica Iulia other manifestations of idealism shown to be post-
(Corinth mus.): Swift, AJA. 1921, p. 3375 pis. X - humous; cf. above, p. 334.
X
XI; Catalogo delta Mostra Augustea di Romanitd, 5 Mattingly (BMC. Imp. pp. cxxvi f.) shows
p. 96. 2. 2
Own collection. that the inscription AVGVST. is inconsistent with
3
Munich, BM, Karlsruhe, Copenhagen: NC. attribution to Caius Caesar; Drexel's suggestion
1906, p. 27. 3, found in Mysia. Ethnic KYZI. often AVGVST(a/w) (Phil. Woch. XLVI, 1926, pp. 157ft,
bungled and misread. cf. Rostovtzeff, Klio, Beih. ill, 1905, p. 70) is un-
4
Istanbul, Oxford (rev. two heads); cf. cast at necessary, since the parallels here enumerated indi-
Winterthur (rev. female head), BM (rev. second cate that such heads could be accompanied by the
young male head). 5 Athens. name of Augustus as well as Caius or Tiberius.
6
Gotha, Wad. 6136: cf. BMC. 99, Cambridge; 1 6
E.g. Ascalon (Jerusalem mus.: Milne, Quarterly
and Paris (Acritas). of Dept. ofAntiquities in Palestine, I , 3,1932, p. 130).
7
BMC. ioy.cf.BMC. 102. 1 7
Richter, Catalogue of Engraved Gems in the
8
Berlin (Dryas); cf. Wad. 6137, own coll.* Metropolitan Museum, p. 129, pi. 57. 218; cf.
GR. M k. 152. 5.
z exactly my PI. XI. 11, 12.
9
Paris (Charixenus). Cf. p. 349. 1 8
Catalogo della Mostra Augustea di Romanitd,
10
Athens, var. BMC. 29. ^ p. 115. 27.
| BMC. 145.
x
» In trade, Basle (axe). 1 9
E.g. Rostovtzeff, festschrift %u Hirschfeld
(1905), 303. 2;
13
Cf. especially the head at the Musee Lavigerie p. id. Rimskiya Svintsoveya
at Carthage, Catalogo delta Mostra Augustea di Tessere (1903), p. 263. 1.
Romanitd, p. 146. 6a. For further material vide 2 0
Montini, Civiltd Romana, v, 1938, pp. 72, 91
Montini, Civiltd Romana, v, 1938, pp. 30 ff. n. 95; Catalogo della Mostra ecc. p. 106. 1.
ecc. p. 107.
14
But this group is to be distinguished from the 2 1
Catalogo della Mostra
358 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
1
features o f this type are regularly employed to express the same idea. The idealistic
impersonality is explained by the idea o f the genius or numen—' the more than normal
2
w i l l perceived i n Augustus' —whose comparative accessibility to the minds and
3
household shrines o f the masses secured i t a leading part i n the untiring and necessary
4
propaganda o f the new order. The genius itself was a purely Occidental concept: but
there were Greek words which facilitated the translation o f the idea for advertisement
to the Hellenistic East. 5cducov is roughly the equivalent o f genius^ although far more
6
extensive i n range. I n particular, Sociucov was 0E6S viewed as an efficient agent i n daily
7
life. Its relevance to the impersonality o f the coins is best seen i n connection w i t h
Nock's statement that Graeco-Roman belief in the early Empire was * directed to divine
8
power rather than to divine personalities'. Appeal was made to the emotions b y
emphasis on the universal and superhuman efficacy o f the Sebastos rather than on his
individual traits. I t is in accordance w i t h this interpretation that, on a local issue o f
Cyzicus (Pi. X I , 23), one o f these youthful ideal heads is accompanied b y the legend
NEOY 0EOY.9 The vkox 0eoi or 0soi ^rr^ccveTs were ' y o u n g and approachable i n -
10 12
carnations o f the old g o d s ' : among them were Caesar," Augustus, Caius, and
13 1
their kinsmen. This was the expression o f clientela *—personal relationship—as i t was
1
adapted to the Greek world, * i n which Roman dignitaries like Pompey boasted o f their
16
vast patrocinia. As at the Roman cities, so i n the Hellenic East the whole o f Roman
1
government was based on this principle—that is, on auctoritas. ? The conception o f
the veos 0E6S accounts for the curious lack o f individuality o f this large group o f ideal
portraits. They are the product o f a publicity policy which aimed at presenting to the
18
religious emotions o f the masses the power o f the Sebastos (who monopolised such
1
Romanophile affection as the Greeks possessed ?) rather than his features to their eyes,
1
Cf. Rink, Die bildlichen Darstellungen des Tiibinger Beitrage iur Altertumswissenschaft, XXXI,
romischen Genius, Diss. Giessen, 1933, pp. 25, 28. 1938, p. 124; cf. p. 93.
He neglects the evidence here quoted, however, 1 2
IGRR. iv, 1064, 1094.
when he claims as the earliest extant example of 1 3
Ibid. 319,74, 75, etc.
this motif a Neronian bronze in the Sambon coll. 1 4
Cf. Skard, Festskrift til Koht, pp. 42 ff.
(Reinach, Repertoire de la statuaire, v, 20. 3). 1 5
For the necessity of adaptation cf. Hammond,
2
Nock, CAH. x, p. 485; cf. Sauter, Tiibinger AJP. 1938, p. 486.
Beitrage iur Altertumswissenschaft, X X I , 1934, C i c Fam. ix, 9. 2; cf. Syme, RR. pp. 15, 30;
1 6

pp. 159 ff. von Premerstein, pp. 16, 20; various cities,
3
Volkmann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 191. Romanising, call Augustus TTOTOCOV (Ath. Mitt, xv,
4
Pippidi, Revue des itudes latines, 1931, pp. 83 ff. 1890, p. 217; cf. CIG. 3609; SEG. 1, 1923. 383, ix,
5 Cf. Waser, PW. iv, 2010. 1938. 56).
6
Cf. Nock, Gnomon, 1932, p. 515. Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 160 ff.
1 7

Preller-Robert, Griechische Mythologie, p. 112.

1 8
7
For the suggestions spirituale of Greek portraits
8
JHS. 1925, p. 85. of Augustus vide Montini, Civiltd Romana, v, 1938,
9 Berlin: cf. Cahn sale, 60 (1928), 1377; Bout- p. 29; and for the blend of idealism and indi-
kowski, DN. 1861. vidualism, L'Orange, Symbolae Osloenses, vm,
1 0
Nock, l.c. p. 93 n. 84. 1929, p. 109.
1 1
Pfister, PW. Suppl. iv, pp. 277 ff.; Christ, *9 Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 168, 205.
 A U G U S T U S A S K T I Z T H Z A N D 0 E O Z ETTIOANHZ 359
and which entirely neglected the dry constitutionality of imperium and the rest in favour
of this psychological appeal. The imperial cult, no less than the clientela principle, is
derived, not from imperium, but from auctoritas (p. 444).
In the entire series, therefore, the only reference to the constitution is a flowery
1
record at Temnos of an event o f no importance: the twelfth consulship o f Augustus is
described as 17AOYZIA YTTATHA.* O n the other hand the moral and religious ideas
mirrored i n the KTioTris-veos Oeos coinages, and issues o f the KOIVOV, are clearly
3 4
perceptible on all sides. O n a coin o f Pergamum, as on inscriptions, Augustus
is described as BOYAAIOZ—hitherto the prerogative o f deities.5 A t Mylasa he is
6
equated with Zeus: the coin is posthumous, but even i n his lifetime the KOIVOV
7
identified him as Zeus TTcnpcpos, and—more significantly i n view o f the liberatio and
8
constitutio coinages—he sometimes appears as ZEUS 'EAeudepios. Elsewhere he is deified
9 10
as 'ATTOAACOV 'EAeuOepios, and, by an easy transition, a coin o f Tralles names him
"HAios ZepccoTds." But i t is possible to show that this religious attitude was not
confined to the few coinages w i t h specific references, by word or portrait, to godhead.
Ignoring the numismatic evidence, McFayden "concludes that the title of canroKpcxTcop
was particularly widespread i n the Eastern provinces, and that its significance was
peculiarly applicable to them. But, on all the multitudinous Asiatic local issues o f
Augustus after 27 B.C., there is not a single appearance o f this title; the few that are 13

14
quoted by Muensterberg have all been reattributed, on other grounds, to a later date.
This omission has nothing to do w i t h the 'senatorial' status o f the province, since i t is
paralleled by a complete absence o f the title from all Greek city-issues o f the lifetime
of Augustus throughout the Empire (p. 427). I t is impossible then to think o f it, or o f
9
Imperator, as the expression o f the princeps domination; the Punic equivalent meno-
xt
kad > is likewise absent from all African issues w i t h that language. No less conspicuous
is the absence o f any mention o f the tribunician power. The bases o f the constitution
appear to be utterly irrelevant to the Greek communities o f Asia and elsewhere. The
appeal o f Augustus lay i n another direction: i t was based on his auctoritas.
KAIZAP, sometimes found, was a name which directly claimed heirship from a
1
Cf. Stevenson, RPA. p. 104. 7 CIG. 3187; cf. Brandis, PW. 11, 479.
2
BMC. 27; cf. ZfN. X I I , 1885, pp. 360 f. 8
Cf. de Sanctis, Rivista di fiblogia, 1937,
3
BMC. 238. pp. 338 f., 342.
4
E.g. CIG. 1307; cf. Ath. Mitt, X I I I , 1888, p. 20. 9 ibid. p. 340; cf. OGIS. 457.
5
Cf. Jessen, PW. m, 1019. For kindred titles 1 0
KM. 2.
1 1
borne by Augustus, vide Riccobono, Anncdi del Cf., for the principle, Riewald, De Imperatorum
Seminario giuridico della R. Univ* di Palermo, xv, Romanorum cum Certis Dis et Comparatione et
1936, p. 482; Christ, Tiibinger Beitrage iur Alter- Aequatione, Diss. Halle, 1912.
tumswissenschaft, xxxi, 1938, p. 93; Skard, l.c. " CP. xvi, 1921, pp. 34 ff., etc.
pp. 61, 69; id. Avhandlinger av Det Norske Viden- 1 3
Significantly there is one use in the triumvirate
skaps-Akademi i Oslo, 11 (Ji.-fil.), 1931,2; Schubart, (p. 374).
Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, 1937, pp. 13, 21. 1 4
Kaisernamen, s.v.
Cf. Robinson, NC. 1937, p. 247. '5 della Vida, Africa italiana, vi, 1935, p. 5.
360 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
god; far more frequent, however, on these coins is ZEBAZTOZ, usually standing
alone. This rough equivalent o f A u g u s t u s ' ignores many o f the implications o f the
1
Latin w o r d , and recalls associations which the Greeks could understand. Its close
2
connection with the acts o f * worship'—icr60eoi Tiuoci—which were natural to them,
3
is indicated b y its equivalence, as the translation o f 'Augustus', to crepctcr^ios:
4
these words are clearly contrasted w i t h dvOpcbirivos, and already actually imply
apotheosis.5 The Accusative case, I E B A I T O N , found on the coins o f Pergamum,
6
Hypaepa and Smyrna, is regularly employed for dedications to gods. I t must not,
indeed, be thought that Augustus, or even his family, monopolised godhead: even
7
benefactors o f local origin were thus honoured, as at Mytilene. Moreover, the i m -
plications o f such divinity can be exaggerated: such deification did not much extend
8
beyond an emotional recognition o f power. From this point o f view, however,
Augustus was far the most significant o f v£oi 0eoi: hence his predominance, though
not to the exclusion o f others, on the city-coinages o f his principate.
Now too can be explained the posthumous issues (pp. 328 ff.). After his death 9
0 E O I joins ZEBAZTOZ on the issues o f the KOIVCC o f Asia and Thessaly, which
were officially and primarily devoted to his worship, but at only seven o f all the
10
cities o f the Empire which coin i n his honour. The implications o f lepaoros made
the conjunction tautological, except as a strict and formal translation o f D I V V S
A V G V S T V S . O n inscriptions and papyri it is noteworthy that Zepacrros is omitted
when the princeps bears any other divine epithet. I t is, therefore, not surprising that
11
Tiberius is described as ZEBAZTOZ ZEBAZTOY at Lampsacus and Byblus," and
13 14 1
ZEBAZTOZ ZEBAZTOY KAIZAP at Olba, Mopsus and Seleucia. * Thus too the
appearance o f plain ZEBAZTOZ is warranted on coins struck i n honour o f Divus
16
Augustus; and Dittenberger is wrong i n considering KAIZAPOZ ZEBAZTOY on a
Tiberian inscription to be a mistake for 0EOY ZEBAZTOY. Equally justifiable is
1
Cf. Muller, Mededeelingen der Kon. Ak. van 8
Cf. Nock, Gnomon, vm, 1932, p. 518; Charles-
Wetenschappen, Afd. Lett., Deel 63, Ser. A, xi, worth, CR. X L V I , 1932, p. 225; vide especially
1927, p. 11; Koops, Mnemosyne, v, 1937, pp. 34rT.; Aristotle, Rhetorica, 1, 5, p. 1361a. 27. Syme (RR,
Heinze, Hermes, LX, 1925, p. 363. Cf. below,p. 444. pp. 54 f.) rightly describes the topic as 'fertile in
2
Nock, Gnomon, vm, 1932, p. 517; Harvard misunderstandings'.
Studies in Classical Philology, X L I , 1930, p. 39. 9
During his lifetime the combination occurs
3
Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum, 11, 21, 25, 26; once (p. 362).
cf. Herodian, 2. 3; Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 143: ocOros 1 0
And three of these are caused by exceptional
yevoiJievos dpxrj aepotcrnoO KCCI TOIS ETTSITCC. circumstances in Macedonia (p. 375): a fourth is due
4
Reiter, Phil. Woch. 1930, 1199 f. to a literal translation of Roman titulature.
5 Cf. Cichorius, Romische Studien, p. 376; Paris; cf. M. S. v, 375. 595.
1 1

Berlinger, Zur inoffiiiellen Titulatur, Diss. Breslau, Rouvier, JIAN. iv, 1901, p. 47. 679.
1 2

1935, p. 76. BMC. 12.

1 3

6
Nock, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1 4
KM. p. 474. 4; Wad. 4378.
X L I , 1930, p. 20. Cf. below, p. 390. 5 BMC. 33; cf. ZfN. xiv, 1887, p. 311.
x

7
Charlesworth, Harvard Theological Review, 1 6
OGIS. pp. 203 f. n. 14.
xxviii, 1935, p. 11.
 A U G U S T U S AS K T I I T H I A N D 9 E 0 I EfTIOANHI 361
the description of Augustus on a Neronian city-issue o f Phrygia (p. 328) as AYTO. KAI.
IEBAI.—again without 0 E O I , whose implications are sufficiently expressed b y
I E B A I T O I . Neronian inscriptions describe the reigning Emperor b y the same
1
titles. I t is also clear that, i n the East, the Roman word 'Augustus' became i m -
pregnated with the significance o f the Greek title. Euromus already writes on her
2 3 4
coins A Y r Y Z T O I , and Cydonia A Y r O Y I T O I — f o u n d also on inscriptions; Olbasa,
a Roman colony but predominantly Greek i n character, actually describes the first
princeps as A V G V S T V S , without the addition o f D I V V S , on a coin o f Antoninus
6
Pius;* and similar Graecisms occur elsewhere. I E B A I T O I coinages continued
throughout the first century, and later. Often the features of Augustus or other early
Sebastoi are modified b y the characteristics o f the reigning princeps, just as artistic
7
representations often mix the characteristics o f two deities. Such eclecticism was
facilitated by the Greek concentration on the inner rather than the outer truth, on
8
power rather than on personality, and was encouraged b y the reproduction and
0
stylisation o f only a small number o f official portrait-busts. Thus, at Laodicea,
I E B A I T O I and KAAYAIOI KAIIAP are portrayed identically (p. 328). Except when
care is taken to equate them with the reigning princeps, heads named I E B A Z T O I may
be supposed to refer to Augustus rather than his successors, since his cult remained so
10
popular that he alone was worshipped i n conjunction with Roma, to their exclusion.
These conclusions make i t possible to reconstruct the occasions o f such portrait-
coinages as are not of the' foundation' category. These include the mintages of cities—
13
Nicopolis," Sidon," Ascalon, all * free', and a group o f * free' arid stipendiary i n Asia
(p. 469)—which, whether commencing with a foundation-coin or not, make more
than one issue i n the course o f Augustus's principate. Some o f these, like a number o f
Roman and Latin cities (pp. 296,337), were selected as real contributors to the Imperial
small change, and as points i n the economic system constructed by the central bureau.
Now the Roman cities taking part i n this scheme generally coined at recurrent quin-
quennalian years: but the institution o f the lustrum was alien to the custom o f Greek
communities. I t is therefore necessary to search for the recurrent occasion which they
invested with the same purpose.
1
Dittenberger, SIG2 814; IGRR. m, 262; 7
Nock, JHS. 1925, p. 89. Cf. pp. 75, 463.
JHS. 1902, p. 119, no. 44; cf. de Sanctis, Rendiconti 8
Ibid. p. 85; cf. Ramsay, I.e.
9
della Pontificia Accademia romana di archeologia, Cf. Brendel, Ikonographie des Kaisers Augustus,
ser. in, X I I , 1932, p. 14; Ramsay, Anatolian Studies Diss. Heidelberg, 1931; Hinks, JRS. xxv, 1934,
to Buckler (1939), p. 222. pp. 94 f.
2
BM. w Brandis, PW. 11, 479; cf. BCH. vi, 1882, p. 92.
3
Cf. Muensterberg, NZ. L V I I I , 1925, p. 43. 1 1
BMC. 9, n , etc.
4
At Cyrene it appears in the same sentence as " Rouvier, JIAN. iv, 1901, p. 252. 1444-1452,
SePaoros (SEG. vi, 1932. 2). etc.
5
Hill, Anatolian Studies to Ramsay, p. 221; BM. BMC. 75, BM =M. v, 525. 60, Oxford, Berlin
1 3

E.g. Abaecherli, TAP A. 1932, p. 266; cf. ibid. =M. v, 525. 61, 63, etc.; de Saulcy, Numismatique
n
- 38 (Lex *Narbonensis'). de la Terre Sainte, p. 185. 5-8, 14, 17 are dated.
362 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PRINCEPS
1
The principal feature o f these issues is the portrait o f Augustus. Kruse has aptly
2
pointed out that imperial portraiture, i n its origins, was not only religious, but was
closely connected w i t h the religious festivals in his honour, the Zepoccrro:.* N o t only
did these fulfil a similar role to the lustra o f Roman cities (recurring, however, at four
4
years' interval, instead o f five ), but they were expressly devoted to the worship o f
Augustus—which was the object o f the entire group o f coinages (p. 360). Indeed,
later coins explicitly allude to these religious festivals as their occasion;5 and at an
6
earlier date many towns are known to have issued temple-coinages. W i t h the exception
o f a few surviving priest-kingships such as Olba,? these had, on the decrease o f priestly
power, undergone a gradual de facto evolution to ordinary city-currency. But the
8 0

10
coins were still struck on religious occasions. The festivals i n honour o f Augustus
stood out as far the most important o f these: they attracted vast crowds, on whose
expenditure some cities largely depended."
The conclusion that the mintages o f this group o f cities regularly coincided w i t h the
Zepoccrrd is confirmed by four special considerations. First, the only relevant Phoeni-
cian city, Sidon, began its portrait-coinage with three issues made at precisely these
12
quadriennial intervals —a fact emphasised by the suspension o f the mintages after the
x
third. 3 Secondly, although many Asian cities portrayed Augustus, portrait-coinage o f
14
Antony, under whom a number o f these communities coin, does not occur; this may
be explained by the fact that, although the honours o f divinity were heaped on him
with an extravagance avoided by Augustus,^ the quadriennial festivals were not
inaugurated until after Actium. Thirdly, an analogy is at hand from an unrecognised
issue o f the K O I V O V 'Acnccs:
IEBAITOY 0E. bare head o f Augustus to right.
ArPinTTAI ArPinnOY KAI THS IOYA!AI YIOI Agrippa Postumus standing,
togate, to right ( P i . X I I , 33). 16

1 3
1
Studien iur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums, It is revived later in a different guise as yearly:
xix, 3; cf. Toynbee, CR. 1936, p. 41. Paris = Rouvier, JIAN. iv, 1901, 1440 ('117');
* Bibliography, ibid. p. 9. some doubtful, then: Berlin, Mabbott coll. (' 120');
3
CIC. 2810& 13: ZspccoTfja, ibid. 1186, 1586: Rouvier, l.c. 1446 ('122'); Paris =M. v, 380. 301
AOyoucmioc, IG. xiv, 738. ('123'); Vienna=ibid. 302 ('124*).
4
Cf. Jones, G C pp. 233 f. The rule-proving exception here is BMC. 191
1 4

5 Cf. Eckhel, DN. iv, p. 436. (et sim.) at Ephesus, on which the heads of all three
6
E . Curtius, Monatsbericht der koniglichen triumvirs appear, jugate.
Akademie der Wissenschaften %u Berlin, 1869, Cf. especially Immisch, Aus Roms Zeitwende,
pp. 472 f., 478. pp. 13 ff.
7 Cf. ZfN. xn, 1885, p. 369; NC. 1899, pp. 181 ff. 1 6
The only specimen now accessible is at
8
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 227. Paris ('uncertain'). Another belonged to Osman
9 Cf. Curtius, l.c. p. 479. Nouri (sale, Sotheby's [July, 1905], 446). Morelli
1 0
This is suggested by McFayden, CP. xvi, 1921, (Familiarum Romanarum Numismata, s.v. Vtpsania)
p. 39. Cf. Jones, GC. p. 229. misread the obverse: the reverse-legend (unless
1 1

12
BMC. 204, 205 (' 102'), Paris =M. v, 380. 296 likewise misread) varies on coins known to Harduin
('106'); BMC. 207 and Paris ('no'). and Sestini (Lettere iv, p. 80; M. S. vi, 672, 409).
 A U G U S T U S AS K T I 2 T H I A N D 9 E 0 I EllKDANHI 363
1
Froehlich's attribution to Agrippa I I , son o f Agrippa I and Cyprus, is invalidated
2
by the Asian style. Agrippa the son of Julia must be Agrippa Postumus. This is not a
city-issue: considerations of type, legend and denomination combine to ascribe it to the
3
provincial mint o f the KOIVOV. The reverse inscription indicates a date between the
birth o f Agrippa Postumus i n 12 B.C. and the disgrace o f Julia i n 2 B.C. There are
reasons for concluding that the young prince is here honoured as eponymous * Apxiepevs
4
of the province, that is, President o f the KOIVOV. N o t only is communal coinage in
honour o f these 'Apxiepeis known,* but there are parallels for its honorary conferment
6
on Romans at this time: the proconsul L . Volcacius Tullus was one o f them. I t was a
natural step to extend this honour from proconsuls to members of the domusprincipis;
and indeed, as an unknown coin demonstrates, an early high-priest had been Augustus
himself (p. 378). Our present piece contributes a valuable analogy to the local coinages.
The occasion for such an issue was clearly the central ceremony o f the priesthood,
7
namely the quadriennial 'Pcouccloc Zepacrrd at Pergamum, whose celebration probably
8
entitled the high-priest to the additional appellative 'Acndpxris. There is no reason to
suppose that Agrippa Postumus (whose public appearances i n Rome were found em-
barrassing) did not preside at this festival i n person, perhaps i n 5 B.C.9 Asian inscrip-
10
tions and some colonial coin-portraits may belong to the same occasion. I t may be
inferred from this issue that three portrait-issues o f the Thessalian KOIV6V" likewise
were occasioned by the recurrent festival in honour of the princeps, whose worship was
12
their principal raison d'itre and who favoured them politically. 13

I f the KOIVOV 'Aoiccs issued money at its 'Pcouccla lepacrrd, i t is, again, highly prob-
able that the cities, i n Asia at least, did likewise at their corresponding ceremonies.
A fourth reason for believing that this was so can be deduced from a coin o f Pergamum,
with portraits o f Caius and Lucius, and the name o f the proconsul Q. Poppaeus
Secundus (?). N o w Poppaeus was governor not before c. A . D . 19-20: *5 and the heads o f
14

the two princes are quite inexplicable except on the supposition that they, like Augustus,
1
Notitia Elementaris Numismatum, p. 228. 8
As, after centuries of controversy, Nock, CAH.
2
The portrait is a characteristically Asian, though x, p. 485 n. 4; Keil, CAH. xi, p. 581.
unskilful, imitation of'East I I ' denarii (BMC. Imp. 9 Unless it is a fiction by which he is here re-
Aug. 66$, etc.). presented as past infancy, the date cannot be much
3
0E(oO) is a title not otherwise applied to earlier. Cf. above, pp. 255, 268.
Augustus in Asia during his lifetime. The coin is 1 0
E.g. SEG. 1 (1923), 385.
much larger than any Asian city-issue of the period. 1 1
By Megacles (Cambridge [McLean 4993]),
4
Cf. Buckler, CR. 1927, pp. 119 f. Sosandrus (ibid. 4994, BM, Athens; Rogers,
5
The next in date is a piece (of the same size) Ancient Coinage of Thessaly, 69), and Antigonus
naming the 'Apxiepevs Alexander the son of Cleon, (BMC. 70).
in c. A.D. 37: ZfN. xxiv, 1904, p. 256; cf. Fritze, 1 2
Their coins read GEZ2AA03N ZEBASTHCON.
Munien von Pergamon, p. 80. 94; Paris. This in- 1 3
Cf. Arvanitopoulos, rioAEucov, 1, 1929, p. 204.
volves many interesting questions relevant to its 1 4
BMC. 250.
Period. *5 p/R. n i ) a6. 628; Waddington, Pastes des
Buckler, l.c. provinces asiatiques, 68—cf. BMC. 251 with
7
Cf. Pfister, PW. (i.R.\ 1, 1061. ZEBAZTOI.
364 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
were the objects o f worship and recurrent festival, which did not cease at their death.
It should be noted that religious games were traditionally exempt from interference due
1
to political changes; also, that the worship o f Caius and Lucius at Pergamum happens
2
to be documented from other sources. This conclusion also enables the explanation o f
a curious numismatic phenomenon at Tralles, where portraits o f Caius i n a pronounced
Tiberian manner (Pi. X I , 45)3 are i n strong contrast to the contemporary version at the
same city (Pi. X I , 50) ; here, again, i t must be supposed that their festivals continued,
4

not only after their own deaths, but after the accession o f their one-time rival, Tiberius.
The portrait-coins o f Augustus, then, when not commemorating a foundation, were
generally issued on the occasion o f le^acr-rcc, while those o f members o f his family
were likewise struck for their appropriate festivals. Thus the new political order was
skilfully displayed through the medium o f coinage deriving its origin from ancient
religious traditions. This interpretation o f the purpose o f Asian city-coinage is sup-
ported and amplified b y an unpublished and apparently unique coin o f Erythrae (Pi.
X I , 66)5 i t h a Tiberian head o f Z E B A I T O Z : on the reverse, w i t h the ethnic and a
w

type o f Cybele w i t h two lions, is the word N O M H — u n d o u b t e d l y referring to one o f

6
the official donatives which played so large a part i n municipal life.? A favourite
8
occasion for one o f these was the recurrent celebration o f the local lepacrrcc, i n honour
of the princeps who is posthumously commemorated on the obverse o f this coin. Such
religious festivals were often assisted from the Imperial purse, as well as b y private
0
munificence. There is every probability that a large proportion o f similar coinages
o f the first century—including no doubt many foundation-pieces—were issued for
10
this charitable and propagandist purpose. They only differ from the large groups o f
tesserae, issued by local authority with the same object," i n that the latter did not sub-
sequently pass into currency. The volume o f an issue can often determine whether i t
belongs to this category or to the mints which contributed materially to the Imperial
small-change system (pp. 296, 337, 361).
The ceremonial and honorific occasion o f the coinages is further illustrated b y an
investigation o f the personages who sign them. These are usually not active local
12
magistrates. Thus i t is not surprising that a number o f personages are found at
13
cities not their o w n . The coinage was often the product o f some eponymous
1
Cf. Cary, CP. xxxiv, 1939, p. 160. 8
Cf. Th£denat, Daremberg and Saglio, I , 2,
2
Inschriften von Pergamon, p. 275, no. 384. pp. 1442 ff.
3 BMC. 117. 114; cf. BMC. Imp. Ti. 47. 9
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 230.
4
Paris, BMC. 121. For an intermediate style 1 0
Ibid., pp. 227ff.,for a general description.
wife BMC. 119-120,123; Copenhagen (PI. X I , 49). " Cf. Muensterberg, MBNGW. 1913, pp. 159^
5 Own collection. 1 2
Rn. 1896, pp. 466 ff.; 1898, pp. 77ff.,127 ff.,
6
For parallel uses of vou^, cf. Aeschines 11, 76 etc.
(singular); Herodian vm, 7. 19; OGIS. 566, line 50 1 3
E.g. Philinus at Orthosia (Paris = M. S. vi, 530.
(plural). Cf. Pliny, Ep. 116, vereor ne...in speciem 462 misread) and Aninetus (MG.p.470. 74),Opinas
dianomes incidere videantur. at Sardis (BMC. 102) and Amyzon (Copenhagen,
7 Cf. Hultsch, PW. iv, 875ff. Wad. 2138, misread), etc.
 A U G U S T U S AS K T I I T H Z A N D 0EOZ E f l l O A N H I 365
1
sinecure. Often no doubt these were the priesthoods—now involving worship o f
2
Augustus, and also gifts to the festivals i n his honour. Signed coinages may well have
been the form taken by those gifts. A n Augustan issue o f Chios w i t h BAZIAEG3Z
ANTIOXOY A6OPON is one o f a number which explicitly describe their signatory as
3 4

the benefactor responsible for the vojifj.5 Honorary, too, is the mention o f not less
than six Greeks on different coins o f Hierapolis w i t h the head o f Paullus Fabius Maxi-
mus, i n no more than a single year (p. 387); i n the same way no less than four names
6
had appeared on Republican tetradrachms o f C. Claudius Pulcher. I t is therefore
customary for these signatures to lack specific titles o f office. But they are not i n -
frequently accompanied by complimentary titles like cpiAoKcaaap —the local imitation 7

of amicus principis*—and <piA6-rrccTpis. 9

The privilege o f this nominal or financial responsibility was, in fact, one accorded to
loyal adherents o f the Roman regime: prosopographical researches reveal, i n Asia, a
number o f well-known pro-Caesarian names. Besides Greeks who affected cogno-
10

mina,11 many of the men recorded were already enfranchised. Their coins, by portrayal
of Augustus, provided publicity for the new government: and they themselves, by their
names, provide us w i t h an effective testimony to the spread of civitas as an advertisement
12
of Rome. They could now make use o f their Roman as well as their native citizenship;
13
i f o f local origin, they were bound by the laws o f both. C. Julius Dionysius, at
14 x
Philadelphia, had taught Augustus Greek and been a good friend to him. 5 Other men
who testify by their Julian gentilicium to rewarded party-spirit are Julius Bito evepyeTrjs
16 1
at Apollonia Salbace, and Asclas, high-priest at Ephesus, ? who is probably the Milesian
18 19
financier C. Julius Asclas. Demetrius at I l i u m , too, is probably identifiable with C.
20
Julius Demetrius who appears at Thyatira —no doubt a kinsman o f the treacherous
profiteer of that name who was Pompey's slave, Caesar's freedman, governor o f Cyprus
1
Cf. Gnadinger, De Graecorum magistratibus BMC. 160; Syme, l.c. p. 259). Zeuxis qHAocAridite
eponymis, Diss. Halle, 1892, pp. 22, 37; Liebe- at the same town (BMC. 151) was the head of a
nam, St. V. p. 283; Regling, PW. xvi, 455. great medical academy (Muensterberg, NZ. 1912,
2
Cf. Jones, l.c. p. 112), and so of great importance (cf. Jones, GC.
3
Mavrogordato, NC. 1917, p. 227. p. 219).
4
E.g. Smyrna (BMC. 277), Side (Hill, Anatolian 1 1
For these cf. Milne, NC. 1924, pp. 316 ff.,
Studies to Ramsay, pp. 216 f.). Muensterberg, MBNGW. 1912, I.e.: Dionysius
5
Cf. IGRR. iv, 769; Broughton, E S . iv (1938), Cilas, Cleon Agapetus, etc.
p. 887; Muensterberg, MBNGW. 1911, pp. 357 ff. Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 189; Jones, GC. p. 172.
1 2

6
Cf. Rn. 1852, p. 91. Sherwin-White, p. 213.
1 3

7
E g . at Philadelphia, KM. 523; cf. I L S . 8958; Wad. 5137; Weber 3365.
1 4

Stevenson, RPA. p. 47. '5 Cf. Stem, PW. v, 914 (78); Gardthausen 11, 1,
Cf. Muensterberg, Jahreshefte des ost. arch. p. 21.
Instituts, 1915, p. 317. 1 6
KM. 1.
9
Cf. Perizonius, ed. Aelian, Vera Historia, in, z
? KM. 60; BMC. 198, etc.
1 8
Revue des dtudes grecques, vi, p. 189; cf. Hatz-
10
E.g. Potamo (Laodicea, M. iv, 317. 712= feld, p. 104 n. 2.
Istanbul; cf. Syme, RR. p. 262), Zeno (Laodicea, »9 BMC. 29. 2 0
IGRR. iv, 1190.
366 T H ECOMMUNITIES A N D T H E PRINCEPS
1
for Antony, and murderer o f Labienus. I t should be noted that dynastic names o f this
kind—and theophoric names like Dionysius—are often a sign o f oriental origin.*
3 4
C. Julius Callicles, who appears at Apamea under Tiberius and at Siblia rather later,
was another protege o f Caesar or Augustus, and so perhaps was Julius Ponticus who is
recorded at Prymnessus shortly after A . D . 14.5 Another posthumous coiner, Philinus
at Aninetus and Orthosia (p. 364 n . 13), is probably the Cn. Babbius Philinus who made
6
his name under Augustus for his building operations at Corinth. Likewise, Vipsanius
7
Silvanus and Vipsanius Justus who appear at Amorium under Caligula clearly owe
8
their citizenship to Agrippa. But A . Furius was lucky, or clever, to have enjoyed a
full cursus honorum at Pergamum i f he was related by blood or clientela to A . Fu
0

10
Tertius A . f. at Ephesus who supported the Republicans before Philippi. Perhaps he
11
was A . Furius Rufus, whose litigation was thought worthy o f epigraphic record; an
A . Furius A . 1. Seleucus was a leading figure i n the goldsmiths' trade at about the time
12 13
of Augustus. Gessius Charidemus at Adramyttium, who probably later attained the
presidency o f the KOIVOV (p. 377), and Egnatius, on an autonomous issue o f Elaea, 14

both belonged to the patrocinium o f Caesarian families w i t h large financial interests i n

1 16
the Near East, o f senatorial * and equestrian rank respectively; a Gessius Florus from
17
Clazomenae later reached the procuratorship o f Judaea. Antistius Nicanor, at Anine-
18 10
tus, also came o f a family w i t h Eastern business connections. The social and com-
mercial revolution is further illustrated b y the presence at Apamea o f C. Masonius
20 21 22
Rufus and (under Tiberius) M . Manneius, members of bourgeois Etruscan families.
23 24
Manneii occur also at Tralles and D e l p h i ; they became business-men i n Rome
2 26
before A . D . 5i. 5 Valerius Smertorix at Eumenia under Tiberius was enfranchised at
1
Miinzer, PW. iv, 2803; cf. Cic. Phil, xui, 12; 1 3
Oxford; cf. Milne, NC. 1935, p. 199.
Dio X L V I I I , 405 f. For a later personage of the same 1 4
BMC. 18.
names at Metropolis, vide KM. 4, Wad. 1764. *5 Cf. Miinzer, PW. vn, 1324; Hatzfeld, BCH.
2
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 36. xxxvi, 1912, p. 39.
3 BMC. 142.
4
GM. 737. Cf. C i c Fam. xui, 73,74,45,47; Miinzer, PW.
1 6

5 Vienna = M. S. vn, 609; cf. OGIS. 533. This v, 1999.

family became eminent again in the third century Josephus, AJ. xx, 11. 1; cf. PIR. 11, 117. 103.
1 7

(SEG. vi [1932], 106; BMC. Phrygia, p. 174, 1 8

Heberdey, Forschungen in Ephesus, m, p. 107
Cotiaeum 78). —not seen by me; perhaps posthumous. It reads
6
Cf. Broneer, Hesperia, 1939, p. 190 n. 4. 'AV0&JTIOS: cf. 'Av&ffOios in Amherst Pap. 11, 92.
7
BMC. 25; Rn. 1851, p. 157. Cf. Hatzfeld, p. 177 n. 4.
1 9

8
Cf. Broughton, ES. iv, p. 703. BMC. 139.
2 0
Wad. 5703 =KM. 17.
2 1

9
Munich=M. S. v, 426. 922, Berlin, Copen- Schulze, pp. 189, 360. Cusinius at Ephesus
2 2

hagen, Oxford: cf. Milne, NC. 1936, p. 283. (Munich =M. m, 93. 252; M. S. vi, 124. 319) is not
1 0
Josephus, AJ. xiv, 239; cf. Miinzer, PW. vn, of this date, as Ramsay (Anatolian Studies to Buckler,
1939, p. 209) thinks, but is manifestly Claudian.
1 1
Ephemeris epigraphica, IX, 1913, 892. IG. xiv, 666; ILS. 7791.
2 3

1 2
CIL. vi, 9202; cf. Loane, Johns Hopkins Wescher and Foucart, Inscr. de Delphes, 457.
2 4

University Studies in History and Political Science, 5 Herzog, PW. xvn, 1432.
2

LVI, 2, 1938, p. 88. BMC. 34, KM. 5.

2 6
 A U G U S T U S A S K T I I T H Z A N D 0 E O I ETTIOANHI 367
1
some date subsequent to his signature o f Antonian coinage as Smertorix Philonidou.
The nomen of Caecilius Plocamus at Prymnessus —possibly the Plocamus who managed
2

3
the banking interests o f the leading party-man L . Autronius Paetus —may hark back
4
to the pre-Caesarian oligarchy. But even if, as is improbable, his thoughts did like-
wise, he would have been isolated among a crowd o f men whose names and records
bear witness to their adherence to the new order, and to their suitability for the privilege
of signing (and paying for) these coinages, whose obverse and purpose were designed
to popularise the princeps as Kricrrris and ve6s 8e6s.
1
BMC. 20; Rn. 1898, pi. II, 11. 4
However, no Greek was enfranchised before
* BMC. 18, 19. c. 102 B . C : cf. Box, JRS. xxii, 1932, p. 183;
3 Ritschl, Opuscuta Philologica, iv, 29; Herzog, Sherwin-White, p. 188.
l.c. 1427.
368 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PRINCEPS

F . A U G U S T U S AS H E I R T O T H E H E L L E N I S T I C MONARCHS

It is not necessary to emphasise that, as KTIOTTIS and 0e6s, Augustus was heir to
Alexander and the Diadochi, who had viewed such roles as an integral part o f their
1
state-institutions. His coin-portraiture i n their dominions is bound to retain many o f
the associations of their rule. I n provincia Syria, where Gaza and Sidon portray him on
//^raf/o-coinages (p. 344), and there are extensive portrait-issues o f Aradus (p. 333 n. 23),
Antioch (p. 376) and Ascalon,* this aspect has particular interest, since here there is a
vital link between Hellenistic and Roman Empires—the rule o f Cleopatra, the last o f
the Ptolemies, i n conjunction with Antony, who combined i n the complex o f his
Imperial claims the heirship to the Seleucid Empire.
3 4
A t Antioch Antony occupied this role, with its implications o f d i v i n i t y : i t must be
in this capacity that a local silver issue o f that city 5 honours him. The same, too, must
be the meaning o f four bronze portrait-coinages o f cities i n Phoenicia, during the five
years (42-c. 37) when this region was directly under his rule. These are Tripolis (with
Fulvia, 41-40; also Fulvia alone, 42-41 7), Aradus (38-37),® Ptolemais Ace (38—37)9
6

10 1 1
and Balanea. The coins recall the municipal series inaugurated by Antiochus I V , and
show by their portraits, which had been a royal prerogative, that the Seleucid tradition
was consciously maintained.
As regards subsequent coinages i n honour of Antony, there are reasons for doubting
Lederer s arguments based on a marriage in 3 6 B.C. He ignores the uncertainty whether
12

13
such a re-marriage (after the tepos yccuos at Tarsus) was necessary or took place,
and only mentions the further possibility that i t occurred i n 37. I t is at least certain
14

1
that the initiation o f a new and exceptional regnal era * accompanied the restoration to
1
Cf. Ferguson, CAH. vn, p. 20; Rostovtzeff, although the era itself varies elsewhere from 49 to
ibid. pp. 114, 162; Jones, GC. pp. 2fT. Cf. p. 356. c. 45 (Lederer, ZfN. xxxiv, 1924, p. 179; Kubi-
2
BMC. 30 ff.; Hu. 72 ff., etc. tschek, Lc. 650), the head of Antony is never likely
3
Cf. Lederer, NC. 1938, p. 69. to appear alone in the dominions of Cleopatra (2KE
4
Cf. Ensslin, Gnomon, 1934, p. 215; Tarn, CAH. error for 2KB in Rouvier, JIAN. in, 1900, 384), to
x, p. 33. 5
BMC. 52. whom the city passed in 37 (Tarn, CAH. x, p. 67).
6
Paris, Hill, BMC. Phoenicia, p. cxviii, not 1 0
BM, Paris (Marquardt, St.V. 1, p. 394 n. 5).
Cleopatra, as Svoronos, Ptolemies, 1896: not There are four letters, not two, and they are
Octavia, as Kahrstedt, Klio, 1910, p. 292. Date 23 a Phoenician magistrate's name, such as is found
(Pompeian era). Cf. Lederer, l.c. p. 72. with a Greek ethnic under Augustus at Byblus (cast
7 Berlin, cf. Rouvier, JIAN. vi, 1903,1640: date at Winterthur: MG. 26).
22, confirming Kubitschek's view (PW. 1. 649) that 1 1
Head, HN. p. 763.
the Pompeian era commenced in 63 and not 64, 1 2
NC. 1938, p. 67; cf. n. 3.
since Antony's rule only began late in 42. 1 3
Levi 11, p. 144. 1 4
Tarn, Lc. p. 66.
8
BMC. 355, Berlin. x
5 Ibid. p. 81, cf. n. 3; cf. Levi 11, p. 143?
9 BMC. 14: date 11 (Caesarian era) righdy Porphyrius, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum,
attributed by Lederer, l.c. to this year, since 111, 774. 9.
A U G U S T U S AS H E I R T O T H E H E L L E N I S T I C M O N A R C H S 369
Cleopatra, in 37, o f the empire o f Ptolemy Philadelphus, which had included most o f
1
Phoenicia. Antony had already coined as a Seleucid at Ptolemais, Aradus and T r i -
polis; overlordship o f the Ptolemaic realm is the cause o f his portrait, w i t h that o f
Cleopatra, at Ptolemais Ace (Pi. I X , 23) and Aradus, which were now i n the Ptolemaic
2 3

kingdom. The same conjunction o f the two rulers appears on regal issues o f uncertain
4
mint. Antony was never crowned K i n g i n the Lagid succession^ but i n the new
regnal era Egypt was one o f the lands o f which he was supreme ruler: he was honoured
6 7
there as Osiris, and the kingdom itself now, i f not earlier, formally assumed a client-
status with regard to Rome.
For it was still Rome o f which Antony was prirnarily the representative. On our first
group o f coins (42-37), indeed, he has appeared as a Seleucid, and on the second (after
37) as an overlord o f Ptolemies; but on other issues, even i n the last years o f his rule,
his titles are purely Roman. O n official silver w i t h Cleopatra—unfortunately o f
8
uncertain mint —he is AYTOKPATGOP TPITON TPI03N ANAP60N; on a military aes
issue at Patrae he is YTTATOZ P (p. 64). Moreover, outside Syria, even the cities
0
significantly recognise the Roman character o f his rule. A t Thessalonica he is AYTO-
KPATOOP, and is named w i t h Octavian, just as they appear i n conjunction at Cnossus
(p. 262). A t Ephesus, we find the heads o f all three triumvirs (Pi. X I , 51 [p. 362 n. 14]).
10

Such meticulousness is without parallel i n the dominions of Octavian, whose cities com-
pletely ignore their ruler's colleagues. Elsewhere i n the East, a coin o f Byzantium with
Antony's portrait" is equally Roman i n allusion, since i t imitates closely the types o f a
Roman denarius; at Alabanda (Pi. X I , 54) heads o f him and Octavia—wrongly
12 13

identified by Imhoof-Blumer as Augustus and Livia—likewise do not deserve the

name of royal, since they merely appear as items i n a considerable portrait-gallery
(p. 373). Thus outside Phoenicia Antony appears only on issues which illustrate his
14
Roman aspects or were struck by Roman officials; and even on the Phoenician
coinages o f Seleucid character, the use o f the Pompeian and Caesarian eras, at Tripolis
and Ptolemais respectively, bear witness to the limitations o f Hellenistic continuity.
1
Although he unduly ignores the Hellenistic religious aspects o f Antony's rule, *
1
Tarn, l.c. p. 67; cf. Momigliano, Athenaeum, 9
Gaebler, NG. 11, 2, p. 97.
1935, p. 144; pace Dobia§, Melanges Bidei, 1934, 1 0
BMC 92, etc. 1 1
BMC 60.
P- 287. 1 2
BMCR. 11, p. 509. 147.
2
Hannover; Lederer, NC 1938, p. 371. 1 3
GM. 406.
3 1 4
Cast at Winterthur. Mionnet's coin of Corcyra with his head (S. in,
4
Hill, BMC Phoenicia, p. Iv. p. 443) is a crude forgery; a bronze piece of Laodicea
5
Levi 11, p. 144; Syme, RR. p. 273. (Koehne, Mimoires de la Societi a" arch&ologie... de
6
Heinen, Klio, xi, 1911, p. 138. St Pitersbourg, vi, p. 245) shows not Antony but
7
Tarn, l.c. p. 34 n. 3. Stevenson, RPA. p. 41, Augustus (von Sallet, De Asandro et Polemone,
points out that this was practically the case at least Diss. Berlin, 1865, pp. 36 f.), and the same is true
from 168 B . C ; cf. Nicolaus Damasc, De vita, 5, of of a silver coin from the same mint (Friedlander,
Caesar. RB. 11, 1865^ p. 266, Uwaroff coll.).
Tarn, l.c. p. 82 n. 1. x
5 Levi 11, p. 101.
370 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
1
Craven is right i n emphasising the Roman correctness o f many o f his arrangements.
But the tradition which Antony followed was derived less from the Republic than from
its greatest son. I t is not by accident that the client-prince policy o f Antony accorded
2
w i t h Caesar's views, and that a coin commemorating Antony's Parthian expedition
4
bore the Sidus luliumJ Highly significant is the collection by Deutsch o f quotations
which show that Antony considered himself the heir o f Julius. He set up a monument
parenti optime merito:* Cicero states that he even maintained that i n a previous w i l l he
6
had held this place—testamento, ut dicebas ipse,filius appellants es. Octavianic propa-
ganda has naturally left no trace o f this state o f affairs.? Granted Antony's predilection
to Caesarism rather than Hellenism, there can be no doubt that, whatever Cleopatra
might say, the purely Roman M . Antonius jun. (Antyllus), who alone o f his father's
sons and step-sons appears on the Roman coinage, was at the end considered the heir to
8
the Caesarian-Antonian world-empire. The little half-breed princes all had their
10
niches i n the fantastic structure o f its ideology,* but even Ptolemy the son o f Caesar,
11
King o f Kings, never emerges from the royal coinages to take an Imperial place w i t h
Antyllus on the official currency. Throughout the triumvirate, Antony is primarily a
Roman magistrate, though one o f the Caesarian rather than the Republican model.
The Phoenician municipal coinages illustrate the change i n the secondary aspects o f his
rule which took place i n 37, when his Seleucid claims became merged i n the project o f
a Roman world-empire, built on the ruins o f Hellenistic monarchies and on a tenuous
claim to the Caesarian succession. From the beginning most Romans must have seen
w i t h painful clarity two obstacles to these plans. I t was dangerous that they excluded
Octavian; that they, and Antony, embraced Cleopatra was disastrous. I t is now
necessary to follow the Lagid thread i n the numismatic tangle o f the triumvirate and
early principate.
Antony was connected with the Ptolemaic kingdom i n two ways. He was allied and
perhaps married to its queen; and his Caesarian empire was linked to the Lagid realm
1
University of Missouri Studies {Social Science), tempted Antony after the Parthian expedition (cf.
in, 2, 1920, p. 22. Craven, l.c. p. xi). Coinage honours Antyllus, and
2
Ibid. p. 55; cf. p. xi. Caesarion's paternity is proclaimed: only now is the
3
Tarn,/ftS. 1932, p. 135. first numismatic record of the new era. On the ad-
4
University of California Publications in Classical ministrative ambiguity of the Donations see Syme,
Philology, ix, 6, 1928, pp. 186 f.; cf. especially RR. p. 270, and above, p. 58.
Florus 11, 15. 1. Cf. above, p. 64, below, p. 421. 9
Tarn, l.c. p. 80 (Philadelphus), id. JRS. 1932,
5 Cic. Fam. xn, 3. 1; cf. Syme, RR. p. 123. pp. 148 ff., and Meiklejohn, JRS. 1934, 192
6
// Phil. 29. (Helios).
7
Cf. Scott, Memoirs of the American Academy in 1 0
Charlesworth, CQ. xxvn, 1933, p. 176; pace
Rome, xi, 1933, pp. 8 ff. Carcopino, Points de vue, pp. 141 ff., id. Annuaire
8
Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 81. The readjustments of de VEcole des Hautes Etudes de Gand, 1937, pp. 37ff.,
34, involving the transference of Alexander Helios Syme, RR. p. 273 n. 1. Cf. C. Oppius, who devoted
to an imaginary kingdom (Tarn, l.c. p. 80), mark a a leaflet to this question in Octavian's interests:
regression from the oriental point of view which had Scott, l.c. p. 49. " Tarn, CAH. x, p. 80.
A U G U S T U S AS H E I R T O T H E H E L L E N I S T I C M O N A R C H S 371
1
by the person o f its sovereign Ptolemy X I V , who was the son o f Cleopatra by Julius.
He was not Antony's heir; but i n 34 he succeeded Alexander Helios as the figurehead
2 3
of Eastern propaganda, and became overlord o f the client-kings, when the pan-
4
Asian symbolism was abandoned owing to its hateful character i n the eyes o f Romans.
The colleague o f Ptolemy X I V i n the Egyptian kingdom was his mother Cleopatra.
When the Empire o f Philadelphus was restored i n 37, the Graeco-Phoenician cities
6
bear witness by their coinage to their position i n the Ptolemaic realm.5 A t Aradus and
Ptolemais Ace,? the head o f Cleopatra appears w i t h that o f her overlord A n t o n y ; on a
8 9
second coin o f Aradus, and at Berytus, she is alone. The last o f these issues was made
in 32-31 B . C . I t is dated to the twenty-first regnal year o f Cleopatra and the sixth o f the
1 0

era of world-empire w i t h A n t o n y ; but i t bears also a third year-sign AN (50), which

11
Brett plausibly assigns to a newly invented era legitimising the accession o f
Ptolemy X I Auletes ('Nothos') i n 81-80 B . C . and thus the Lagid dynasty. This is
typical o f the whole group o f coinages, which is Ptolemaic i n character.
Yet Cleopatra's position was more than Ptolemaic. A similar series was inaugurated
inland, at Damascus, i n the year 276 o f the Seleucid era (36-5), and the issue was re-
12

peated i n 32-1. But no head occurs o f Ptolemy X I V Caesar, who was king o f Syria
13

until 34 and then overlord to the new king Ptolemy Philadelphus. His only numis- 14

1
See p. 370, n. 10. 1 4
Tarn, CAH. x, p. 80. The conjecture of
2
Meiklejohn, JRS. xxiv, 1934, p. 192. Svoronos (l.c. 1891) that the head of Ptolemy X I V
3
Tarn, CAH. x, p. 80. appears on a coin of this city with the date 277
4
Id. JRS. xxn, 1932, p. 141. (ZOC) must be disproved. Wroth, BMC. Syria,
5 For the uncertainty of other evidence cf. Fink, p. 282. 1, rightly ignores its possibility on icono-
JRS. xxn, 1932, p. i n . graphical grounds, and the piece is entirely out of
6
Cast at Winterthur. keeping with autonomous Damascene issues of this
7
Hannover: Lederer, NC. 1938, p. 65. period (e.g. BMC. p. 283). A better explanation is
8
Athens: Svoronos, Ptolemies, 1886. suggested by comparison with a coin of Caesarea
9
An uncertain coin (Berlin), perhaps repre- Panias with K A I C A P T 7 A N I A A O C P O B (Paris,
senting Cleopatra, is shown on PI. X I I , 19. Possibly cf. de Saulcy, Num. Terre Sainte, 1) (PI. X I I , 23).
some of these are foundation-issues. The heads of the two coins are alike, and both have
1 0
Tarn (CAH. x, p. 100 n.) is wrong in citing a late styles and square 'sigmas'. Since Caesarea
regal coin of the same date, found at Berytus, to Panias was only founded in 3-2 B.C., there can be
prove a change from regal to city coinage indicating no possibility that its date 274 (AOC) is of the
a revolt from Cleopatra. In the first place, the local Seleucid era; on the other hand the second date, 172
issue also bears her head (cf. Kahrstedt, Klio, x, ( P O B ) , suits the foundation era. This will attribute

1910, p. 277), which could not appear after a revolt; the coin to A.D. 169-170 (a date entirely in accord-
secondly, the evidence, of provenance is quite in- ance with the style), and establish the commence-
sufficient to demonstrate that the regal coin was ment of the earlier era at 105-4 B.C. The coin of
struck at Berytus at all (Hill, BMC. Phoenicia, Damascus is stylistically close, and ZOC is close to
P- lv); and on grounds of fabric and style this is AOC. The eras must have been related, if not
improbable. identical, c. 105 is a particularly probable date for
|| J -A A
my> p- 460.
both cities to have obtained some form of recogni-
Paris: Svoronos, l.c. 1890. tion. The civil wars between Antiochus VIII
1 3
Paris: ibid. 1892 f. Grypus and Antiochus I X Cyzicenus permitted
372 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
matic representation is i n the inferior position o f a babe (Eros) i n the arms o f Cleopatra
(Aphrodite) on regal coinage o f Cyprus (Pi. I X , 29). The appearance o f his name on
1

2
another issue o f that island is very uncertain, since the coin has been badly tooled.
3
Even i n Egypt the head o f Cleopatra appears alone. Yet Ptolemy Caesar was first
King, then King o f Kings, i n Egypt and i n Cyprus as well as i n Syria. The coinages
4
recognise this fiction at its true w o r t h . Cleopatra, when not w i t h Antony, appears'
alone, to the exclusion o f her sons. I n her new regnal era she was more than Queen o f
Egypt, more even than Queen o f Kings. Thus her coins, like her position, impinged on
the Roman state, and demand consideration i n the present study. O n denarii, struck
perhaps at Alexandria^ not only is she R E G I N A R E G V M F I L I O R V M Q U E R E G V M
but her counterpart is Antony. A commentary on her status is provided b y the three
remaining local coinages i n her honour.
The first o f these includes silver tetradrachms o f Ascalon issued i n 49-8,48-7 and
38-7 respectively. Like the local bronze, they are noteworthy for their omission o f
6

Cleopatra's nominal colleagues, first Ptolemy X I I and then Ptolemy X I V Caesar; i t is

clear that as early as 49-8 her seniority and predominance were recognised. Even an
Alexandrian tetradrachm o f 47-6 shows her alone:7 the coins o f Ascalon make i t un-
8
necessary to explain this by a period o f rule without a colleague. I n view o f her later
rise to power, the issues o f Ascalon are important by their demonstration that a Lagid
could appear as protector outside his or her realm, and that the collegiate fiction was
ignored i n favour o f Cleopatra from the very outset o f her reign.
Her exceptional position, as an Empress i n more than the Lagid sense, is even

Sidon and Tripolis to initiate eras in 111, Seleucia reference to his titular superior. It is not true that
in 108 (Jones, CERP. p. 255), and Ascalon in 103 Antony deliberately excluded the Roman ruling
(Brett, AJA. 1937, p. 457; pace Jones, Lc.). More- class (Levi 11, p. 153). Nor (as ibid. p. 146) did the
over, Damascus was the capital of Cyzicenus (cf. domains of Ptolemy Philadelphus include Roman
Tiimpel, PW.. iv, 2 0 4 5 ) , * therefore especially Syria, where Q. Oppius, unlike Crassus, coins as
w n o s

likely to have granted the privileges to Damascus PR. (p. 61).

(not the same as Demetrias [p. 331]). Thus historical 5 Cf. Strong, CAH. Plates iv, 1, p. 198 f.
considerations support the numismatic evidence of 6
Dates ANE (BMC. 3), ANZ'(Athens) and A5Z
a new era from 105-104. Benzinger (PW. m, 1290) (Adda coll., Alexandria). Brett (AJA. 1937,
shows that Caesarea Panias, as Panion, was already pp. 452 ff.) suggests the right interpretation for
Hellenised in thetimeof Antiochus I V ; the evidence these by her statement that Ascalon never belonged
of the coinage, and the analogies of Damascus, to the Lagid kingdom; she points out that others of
Ascalon, Seleucia, Tripolis and its near neighbour its coins honour earlier Ptolemies in the same way,
Sidon, indicate a commencement for its era in the and that each issue coincides with a crisis in which
same decade, perhaps also in 105-104. the Egyptian monarchy intervened to protect
1
Poole, BMC. Ptolemiesyp. 122. 1; cf. Curtius, Ascalon. She also shows the falsity of the era of
Rom. Mitt. 1933, p. 182. 84 B . C supposed by Svoronos, and the preferability
2
Poole, Lc. p. 124. of 103 to 104 for the beginning of the city era. Cf.
3
Ibid. p. 123. 4 ff. also Curtius, Rom. Mitt. 1933, p. 183.
4
Cf. also the bronze issues of four governors, of 7 Cf. Curtius, Lc. p. 182.
whom one only (Crassus, p. 55) makes an oblique 8
As Poole, BMC. Ptolemies, p. lxxxiv.
A U G U S T U S AS H E I R T O T H E H E L L E N I S T I C M O N A R C H S 373
better illustrated by a bronze coinage outside the Ptolemaic Empire, at Alabanda. The
1
single extant example o f this has been completely misread and misinterpreted. I m -
hoof-Blumer describes i t as follows: AAABANAE 2
TITOY THAE. (?) head o f
Livia to right— [ETTI AO]POAITOY A[MN?]HZZO[Y] head o f Augustus to right. I t
has been pointed out that the same writer wrongly identified another Alabandean
portrait as Augustus (p. 369, PL X I , 54); the features here are even less Augustan. The
legend on the other side has been misread by Imhoof-Blumer owing to a misinterpre-
tation o f two badly executed ' K's as Y and H respectively. The true description is as
follows:
AAABANAE[0)N] ETT. T. OKT. KAE. head o f Cleopatra to right.
AM(?)N(?)HZZ[OZ ErTA<D?]POAITOY head o f Amnessus (?) to right (Pi. X I , 55).
The distinctive head on the reverse is clearly that o f a private citizen, like another i n the
same series—again mistakenly attributed to Augustus by Imhoof-Blumer—which is
inscribed APIZTOrENHI inTTAPXHZ, whose features i t presents (Pi. X I , 57)^ The
last three letters below the female bust on the present coin are distinguished by size
from the rest o f the inscription, and afford a clear identification w i t h Cleopatra; the
4
features, scantily executed as they are, accord well with known portraits o f her. The
eponymous (?) magistrate named with her must be, after a custom already found earlier
in Bithynia (p. 396), the governor. A t this date there would be no parallel to the appear-
ance o f a local magistrate's name after ETTI: every supposed Augustan example has
been shown to be posthumous. There is, moreover, a gap i n the Asian Fasti i n 32-31
(p. 395); T . Oct(avius?) may well have been a kinsman o f the M . Octavius Cn. f. who
commanded part o f Antony's fleet at Actium.5 I n view o f the rarity o f the praenomen
Titus i n this clan, i t may be permissible to refer the enfranchisement o f T . Octavii at
6
Sparta to a governorship o f Achaia by the present official; possibly also some o f the
7
numerous Octavii i n Asia owe him their names. Here is a deliberate conjunction o f
Cleopatra with a Roman proconsul. I t suggests an attempt to bridge the gap between
Rome and Cleopatra, and perhaps also a demonstration that Octavian was not sup-
ported even by members o f his own family—just as Sextus had coined through another
of his kinsmen, L . Appuleius Decianus (p. 24). T h e portraits merely rank with
8

others o f Antony, Octavia, and even private citizens, who appear on the curious
series at this mint.
A third issue i n Cleopatra's honour was actually made on the opposite side o f the
1
Berlin. KM. 107. 7.
2
Box, JRS. xxn, 1932, pp. 168, 179; cf. xxi, 1931,
GM. 137. 407; Berlin, Milan, Cat. 418 (reverse p. 205.
3

misread to bear inscription of Livia). e.g. Cyzicus (Ath. Mitt, vi, p. 42. 2), Thyatira
7

4
Cf. Curtius, Rom. Mitt. 1933, pp. 182 ff. (Denkschr. d. JVien Ak. 1911, 11, p. 49. 101), Per-
5
Plutarch, Antonius, 65; cf. Syme, RR. pp. 269, gamum (Hatzfeld, p. 164).
2 8
9& For the regular and often cynical schisms of
IG. v, 1. 115, 516, show their descendants; cf. noble families at this time, vide Syme, RR. p. 64.
374 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE PRINCEPS
Aegean. Patrae strikes a coin w i t h BAZIAIZZA KAEOTTATPA (draped bust to right)
(PL I X , 30) and AHAZ AYZttNOZ ITATPEGON (sistrum). I t is arresting to find that
1

the Egyptian sistrum and the Ptolemaic title have come half the way to Rome; and
the fears recalled by Horace seem justifiable. But Juba and his son are called R E X
at Carthago Nova, and Antiochus o f Commagene BAZIAEYZ on coins o f Chios
(pp. 216, 365). Nevertheless, Regling's explanation* that this piece is purely honorary
(Ehrung, nicht... Herrschaftsanspriiche) does not accord w i t h the message to eye and
mind conveyed by this piece to us, as to its ancient recipients. The coinage is as sug-
gestive and allusive as the whole propaganda o f which i t formed a part—based on the
syncretistic nightmare o f the combined dreams o f a Roman Emperor and a Graeco-
oriental queen, whose ambitions were only alike i n their magnitude and impractica-
bility. I t is certain that at the end Cleopatra stood by Antony's side, as ruler o f all; 3
but a decade o f unprofitable adjustments had been necessary to achieve this untenable
result. Her contribution to the principate was a warning that, i f Greek symbolism was
necessary to rule the Greeks, the princeps must, without a Greek colleague, combine
it i n his own many-sided Imperial personality. For our numismatic study she
and Antony illustrate the complexity o f the Romano-Hellenistic tradition to which
Augustus's portrait-coinage succeeded.
Yet another aspect o f this is provided by three mints i n the region which had been
the core o f royal Macedonia—civitates liberae Amphipolis and Thessalonica, and
stipendiary Edessa. The two 'free' cities have series long enough to play an integral
4
part i n the currency o f the Empire; Edessa has a single foundation-issue, and A m p h i -
polis probably inaugurates its coinage w i t h a similar piece (p. 343). Titulatures are 5

6
KAIIAP 9 E 0 Y YIOZ, KAIZAP ZEBAZTOZ, KAIZAPOZ ZEBAZTOY, and ZEBAZTOY.
Since, as triumvir, he has already had his title AYTOKPATCOP placed upon several
issues o f the latter mint,? his invariable omission o f i t as princeps on all the numerous
Greek issues o f Macedonia, as elsewhere, confirms that there was a deliberate
avoidance o f emphasis on the Imperator title. O n the other hand, not only is the
coinage itself so large as to make an entirely religious character improbable, but
there is evidence that the attitude o f the Macedonians to the princeps differed from that
o f other Greek communities. The divergency is illustrated by the posthumous coinages
8 10
i n his honour. A t Edessa, Amphipolis,? Thessalonica, and (a "short distance within

1
BMC. 15; cf. Curtius, Rom. Mitt. 1933, p. 183. posthumous heads only occur at cities * founded' by
2
ZfN. 1906, no. 1905. him (p. 318); perhaps Augustus did not need to
3
Tarn, CAH. x, p. 81; cf. n. 6; cf. Charlesworth, revise the constitution which he installed.
6
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, A coin of Edessa with A Y T O K . . . . , at Sofia
CLI, 1932, p. 6. Cf. above, pp. 64 f. (Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 62), is much later, and is
4
BMC. 73 ff. of Amphipolis; BMC. 58 ff. of rightly omitted by Gaebler.
Thessalonica. 7
Gaebler, NG. 11, 2, p. 97.
5 Thessalonica, on the other hand, portrays 8
BM = M. 1,475. 9 - l 8

Julius as GEOZ. It has been pointed out that his 9

BMC. 74. MG. p. 94. 128.
1 0
A U G U S T U S AS H E I R T O T H E H E L L E N I S T I C M O N A R C H S 375
1
Thrace, but no doubt attached to the province rather than the kingdom) at Abdera,
he is invariably called, not plain ZEBAZTOZ as on other posthumous coinages, but
9 E 0 I [KAIZAP] [ZEBAZTOZ]. I n all the rest o f the Greek world only four cities
out of hundreds translate divus i n this way:* yet i n Macedonia the practice is universal
and invariable. I t is reasonable to deduce that here alone the name o f ZEBAZTOZ
itself was not considered enough to imply posthumous divinity, and that i n his life-
time—when that title is unaccompanied by OEOZ—Augustus was not deified i n the
same way as by other Greek cities.
There is, moreover, a historical basis for this view. Augustus deliberately posed as
3
the heir o f the great Antigonids; he was also, throughout the East, responsible for a
4
revival o f the spirit o f Hellenistic monarchy. N o w the Antigonids, i n their own
country, had strongly and caustically discouraged their worship as deities, although
cities had allowed their enthusiasm to overstep the bounds imposed by the official
philosophic theory of the Macedonian kingdom.* The formula on which this was based
was the duty o f service: and this too was a no less vital element than religion i n the
statio principis evolved for and by Augustus. I t is therefore natural that in Macedonia,
6

where the idea o f living divinity was not traditional, i t was subordinated to other
and more suitable aspects o f the manifold character o f the principate. Exceptionally,
Augustus, while alive, is treated as a man, and ZEBAZTOZ as a human title. After
his death, when his deification is admitted, 0EOZ has to be added.?
1
NG. 241. the Imperial cult established itself, as even under the
2
Ilium, Pergamum, Aphrodisias, Augusta. The Antigonids; Keil attributes the foundation of the
last (BMC. 4) is rendering literally the Roman KOIV6V MoxeSovcov at Beroea to the^ime of Augustus
titulature of Tiberius. Cf. above, p. 36b. (CAH. xi, p. 567). But it may be significant that its
3
Tarn, CAH. x, p. 113. earliest coin (at Sofia and Belgrade), attributed by
4
Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 167. M. S. in, 47 to his principate, is an imperfectly pre-
5
Tarn, CAH. vn, p. 202. served example of a Claudian issue (cf. Gaebler,
6
Klostermann, PAilologus, LXXXVII, 1932, pp. ZfN. xxiv, 1904, p. 245; id. xxxvi, 1926, p. 114).
358 ff.; cf. Gag6, Rev. hist, CLXXVII, 1936, p. 336. The error has lately been repeated by Newby (p. 77)
7
Nevertheless, it was probably not long before and Elmer (Belgrade Cat. p. 4. 229).
376 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS

G. A U G U S T U S AS 'APXIEPEYZ

O n two other coinages also Augustus is honoured as man rather than god. One o f
these is a series o f Antioch, which played a larger part i n the Imperial currency-system
than that o f any other peregrine mint. I t consists o f dupondii and asses w i t h the
1

following types:

KAIIAPI IEBA2TG) APXIEPEI Laureate head to right.

2
APXIEPATIKON ANTIOXEII i n wreath.

Dates, o f the Actian era, range between 7-6 B . C . and 1 B . C - A . D . I . Resemblances o f

3

style and module confirm that these were issued b y the same mint as the main official
group w i t h SC (p. 100); i t w i l l be seen elsewhere that Antioch issued several other
4

kinds o f currency at the same time (p. 396). The fact that a series o f silver tetradrachms
and another o f 'pseudo-autonomous* small change began at the same date as the
present category* suggests an extensive re-organisation during the legatio o f Varus,
6
whose financial acumen was conspicuous. The double emphasis on the dpxiepeioc is
7
remarkable. Dieudonne only remarks that the issue is dedicated to Augustus, and
8
Bouchier cannot decide whether the high-priesthood is Roman or Antiochene. But
it is clear that the Antiochene people could not strike * Archieratic' coinage—as the
reverse legend asserts that they did—for a Roman high-priest: this would be quite
0
different from merely honouring him i n that capacity. Ramsay must, therefore, be
right i n considering Augustus the high priest o f Antioch. Eponymous priesthoods are
10
a frequent phenomenon at Greek cities. M a n y o f them retained prerogatives o f their
previous dignity," and at some, notably Olba, they still carry the rights o f coinage;
in Asia, too, the local issues are temple-currency i n a modified form (p. 363). I t
may be added that the view that any o f Augustus's priestly titles, even at Rome, gave
12
him an imperium , has been exploded. I n general character, then, the Antiochene
13

series is religious like those of the other cities. But the appearance o f Augustus as high-
priest rather than god is, as far as our evidence permits us to know, unique among city-
coinages. Nor was the experiment continued under Tiberius, whose normal titulature

1
E.g. found in Yugoslavia (Zagreb), Bulgaria 7
Melanges numismatiques, 11, 1919, p. 137-
(Sofia), Cilicia and Cappadocia (Milne, Annals of 8
A Short History of Antioch, p. 307.
Archaeology and Anthropology, in, 1910, p. 91). For 9
Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, p. 56; pace
an Imperial countermark, vide above, p. 102 n. 4. Eckhel, DN m, p. 274.
2
BMC 133 ff. 1 0
Gnadinger, De Graecorum magistratibus epo~
3 Munich (EK), pace Macdonald, NC 1904, nymis, Diss. Halle, 1892, pp. 3 ff.
pp. 105 ff. (ZK). Ibid. p. 109.
4
" Cf. Jones, GC. p. 227.
5 Macdonald, I.e., corrected by Munich specimen. Mommsen, St.R. n , p. 20.
1 2 3

6
Velleius 11, 117. Cf. above, p. 127. Vide Rosenberg, PW. ix, 1207.
1 3
 A U G U S T U S AS 'APXIEPEYI 377
1
appears on coins of similar type and style in conjunction with the name of the legatus.
The Augustan issues at least may well have been provided from the temple-funds, since
2
there is ample evidence i n Syria of the existence o f such treasuries and o f their use for
3
public works. H o w far this is true o f other Syrian currencies as well cannot be said.
4
A curiously close parallel is provided b y another coin, which is apparently unique:
it was very imperfectly read by Eckhel,* and has never since been published:
ETTI KAIIAPOZ TO AEYTEPON bare head o f Augustus to right.
XAP1AAMOY 1EPEOS, AYTOM. rPAM(M)ATEOZ bearded head to 6
right.
Countermark IMP. ( P i . X I I , 30).
The style o f this piece requires attribution to provincia Asia; but there are various
reasons for believing that i t cannot be classed among city-issues. Those invariably
have an ethnic, which is here lacking; indeed, the present inscriptions bear no relation
whatever to such coinage. N o use o f ETTI i n the local series can be attributed to the
principate o f Augustus (pp. 373, 396). The countermark is found elsewhere only on
coins not issued by local authority (cf. p. 94).? Finally, the denomination is much larger
than any employed at this date by the cities, whose mintage is restricted to very small
pieces. But two issues o f the KOIVOV 'ACT! as, under Augustus and Caligula (p. 363),
are of precisely this module; and there can be little doubt that the present issue is o f
similar origin. I n 29 B.C. the KOIV6V was officially devoted to the cult, by the Asian
Greeks—this coin cannot refer to the cult o f resident Romans—of Rome and the
princeps at Pergamum; a temple was completed there ten years later.*
8

10
Now the portrait o f Augustus is imitated from a m o d e l which precludes a date
earlier than 27. The retention o f plain KAIZAP after that date is paralleled by many
official and local issues (p. 359) and by the continuation of formulas such as ITOS Korfcrapos
(cf. p. 331). The unique obverse phrase w i t h ETTI suggests that the princeps is here
the holder o f some honorary magistracy; and the omission to define this indicates that
it was eponymous." The eponymous magistrate o f the KOIVOV 'Aaiccs was the pre-
siding 'Apxiepeus 'Acriccs (p. 363); communal documents bear his name i n conjunction
12
with that o f the ypauucrreus vacov TCOV £V ' A a i a . The ypa^uonreus appears here also:
1
BMC. 150E " E.g. K A I I A P T O T E T A P T O N is the record
%
Cf. HeichememviTS. iv, p. 248 nn. 10-14. of an eponymous local office as crrapavr^dpos
. 3
Ibid. nn. 15-16. 4
Vienna. DN. 1, p. 77. (BCH. xxn, 1898, p. 368. 6). Moreover, tni is
5

6
Monogram 12. 7 E.g. BMC. Imp. p. xxxiii. regularly used to express eponymy (cf. Preisigke,
8
Cf. Nock, CAH. x, p. 485; Hardy, EHR. v, Worterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden, s.v.;
1890, p. 227. The provincial notables had already e.g. Turin Papyrus, 1, v, 5, etc.) and, when two or
been occasionally convened by Caesar (Caesar, BG. more names occur together, that which is governed
> 6. 5, etc.; cf. Last, CAH. xi, p. 472) and Antony
Iv
by hvi is eponymous (Gnadinger, De Graecorum
(Appian, BC. v, 4, etc.; cf. Monceaux, De Communi magistratibus eponymis, Diss. Halle, 1892, p. 43).
Asiai Provinciae, Diss. Paris, 1885, p. 6). " Cf. OGIS. 458, Mouoeiov Kal BipAto6T|Kr| TTJS
9
Tac. Ann. iv, 37; Dio L I , 20. EOayyeAiKfjs SxoAfis, > 4""5> 9> brandis, PJV.
v l88 7

10
BMC. Imp. Aug. 700. 11, 1558; Schulthess, PJV. V I I , 1770.
378 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE PRINCEPS
1
he may be the Automedon who was a well-known poet of the period. The high-priest
must be Augustus himself. The same office is known to have been held by members o f
his family like Agrippa Postumus, and b y proconsuls such as L . Volcacius Tullus
(p. 363). Since the terminus post quern for the coins is 27 B.C., the visit of the princeps to
Asia in c. 21-19* is indicated for his second high priesthood here recorded: a particularly
probable occasion is that o f the foundation o f the temple at Pergamum i n 19.3 His
first tenure may well have coincided w i t h the formal foundation o f the KOIV6V i n 29.4
It did not seem anomalous to the ancients that the princeps should be high-priest o f
6
a cult which was largely devoted to his own worship5 ( i n combination w i t h R o m e ) :
1
he was i n precisely the same situation as Pontifex Maximus. Moreover, like Julius and
8
Antony, and later Hadrian, he is known to have presided i n person over assemblies o f
provincial notables.* But whether present i n the province or not, he cannot have
performed the arduous duties required o f the provincial high-priest; nor could these
have been delegated to the secular ypauuocreOs. The priest who deputised for the
Imperial high-priest could not himself have borne the title dpxiepeOs, but only
that o f iepeOs. This, then, is the situation o f Charidamus, who thus naturally signs
the issue i n conjunction w i t h his ypauuocreOs Automedon. The unusual absence of the
high-priestly title is thereby explained. Yet the prestige o f the iepeOs representing the
princeps may well have exceeded that o f the ordinary presidents or dpxiepets, i n the
same way as his praefecti at colonies were more respected than duoviri. I t is clear that
10
the bearded head on the reverse is not an idealistic conception, but a portrait: i t must
represent Charidamus, the senior member of the signatory pair. He is very likely to be
the Gessius Charidemus whose name appears on a contemporary coin of Adramyttium
(Pi. X I , 62)." A n inscription from Smyrna recording the dpxispeOs us Chari-
demus" may well refer to a year i n which the same man held the high-priesthood
13
himself—especially since many Gessii resided i n Smyrna. Vowel-usage o f the period
14
permits the identification o f Charidamus and Charidemus. Other bearded portraits
on local coins—of Hypaepa and Dioshieron—likewise seem to represent religious
officials, Attalus and Papion (Pi. X I , 64,^ 63 ), or possibly Zeus ' i n their image'.
l6

1
Hillscher, Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie, vinces sinatoriales, p. 201; Buckler, Revue de
SuppL X V I I I , 1892, p. 415. philologie, ix, 1935, p. 177; cf. Poland, Festschr. \u
* Suet. Oct. 17. 26; Dio L I , 18. I , LIV, 7. 4. 700 / . Feier der Kreu\schuh^u Dresden [1926], p. 54*
3 Monceaux,l.c.p.6;cf.Tac.^nn.iv,37;DioLi,20. 1 0
K. Pink has expressed his agreement with this
4
Hardy, EHR. v, 1890, p. 226, calls it a 'modi- view. Oxford, cf. NC. 1935, p. 199.
1 1

fication and extension'. 1 2

IGRR. iv, 1435; cf. PIR*. 11, 156. 712.
5
Guiraud, Les Assemblies Provinciales, p. 82; 1 3
Cf. Hatzfeld, p. no. The later procurator of
Monceaux, l.c. p. 47. Judaea, Gessius Floras, came from Clazomenae
6
Nock, CAH. x, p. 485. near by (Josephus, AJ. xx, 11.1; PIR. 11,117.103).
7 Cf. van Buren, QAS. v, p. 14; Taylor, Divinity For the interests of the family in this region, cf.
of the Roman Emperor, pp. 203 f. Hatzfeld, BCH. xxxvi, 1912, p. 39.
8
Spartian, Historia Augusta, Vita Hadriani, 12. 1 4
Cf. Buck, Greek Dialects, pp. 154 ff.
9 Halgan, Essai sur 1*administration des pro- *5 BMC. 14. 1 6
Wad. i960.
 379

Chapter 2

THE COMMUNITIES A N D T H E R O M A N OFFICIALS

A. H E A D S O F O F F I C I A L S O N T H E C O I N A G E S

A
C O N S I D E R A B L E number o f these can be discovered. Most o f them escaped
the notice of Muller, Waddington and Mommsen, whose conclusions regarding
portraiture have been criticised elsewhere (p. 228). I t may be said i n recapitula-
tion that any supposition o f a Bildnisrecht is inaccurate: the procedure is entirely
honorary. This view has been confirmed by the identification o f numerous heads o f
private citizens—for example at Alabanda, Laodicea, Miletopolis, Dioshieron and
Hypaepa—and by the attribution to Augustan portraits of a religious and social rather
than a constitutional significance (p. 362). I t is therefore not surprising to find gover-
nors honoured i n the same way. O n official coinage the barrier had been removed
(though, as has been demonstrated, not by a formal decree) under the dictatorship, and
the portrayal o f living men was swiftly extended to two Roman groups. The colonies
and municipia display the heads o f their founders, and the * imperatoriar silver soon
produces portraits o f living men—Octavian, Antony, the Pompeii (p. 22), Q.
1
Labienus, and possibly Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus*—and even women, such as
3
Octavia and perhaps Fulvia. W i t h these precedents i t was natural for the peregrine
communities to proceed to a similar practice i n honour o f their provincial authorities:
it is possible to collect no less than a dozen that took advantage o f the opportunity
within this period.
The first two instances are provided by communities i n Farther Spain. One of these
is Vesci in Baetica. O n the reverse is VESCI and a b u l l ; on the obverse the name
4
C. L I V I V S , accompanied by a bare head to right. Vesci was stipendiary.* Given the
stylistic probability o f a late Republican date, the office o f C. Livius can be recovered
from a passage of Appian. He records the appointment o f L . Antonius as proconsul o f
Spain in 40 B.C., and mentions that the previous legati o f Nearer and Farther Spain 6

remained as his subordinates: CrrrocrrpcnT|youvTCov ccCrrcp TCOV VOV f|yovu£vcov ccCrrffe

neSouKociov TS KCC! AEUKIOV (sic)J Ganter's attribution o f Peducaeus to the Farther
8
province, i n opposition to Wilsdorf,* is based on erroneous numismatic information.
1
BMCR. 11, p. 500. 131. 4
Vives m, p. 46 (illustrated).
2
Von Sallet, ZfN. 1891, p. 203; cf. Syme, RR. * Cf. Pliny, NH. 111, 10.
P. 268; pace Grueber, BMCR. p. 487 f. 1. 6
Cf. Ganter, p. 52; cf. Wilsdorf, Fasti His-
3
Grueber, I.e., p. 395. 40 ff. Maffii's addition of paniarum provinciarum, Diss. Leipzig, 1878, pp.
Calpurnia (Storia, 1939, fasc. 1) is very dubious; 131 ff.
c£ Borelli, Numismatica e science affini, v, 1939, 7
BC. v, 54.
P- *5- 8
P. 14. 9 L.c. p. 140.
380 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
2
He cites coins of Carteia and Urso w i t h Q. P E D E C A L and Q. R E D E C A L . (sic) 1

3
respectively, and identifies the two (whom Eckhel first considered to be the same)
w i t h the Peducaeus of Appian. The coin of Urso—even apart from the alteration
4
necessitated—is only known from a very early authority, Como Rodrigo Caro, and is
rightly doubted by subsequent writers.* But even i f i t exists and can be dated to the
forties B . C . its connection w i t h the official at Carteia is out of the question. First,
the Carteian coin seems pre-Caesarian; secondly, i t is one of a homogeneous series—
6
including many names accompanied b y the titles of local magistrates. Alone or i n
conjunction, the two issues fail to warrant Gamer's supposition that * Q. Peducaeus* is
Appian's legatus. There is therefore no reason to doubt Fischer's identification of the 7

latter w i t h Sex. Peducaeus Sex. f. Sex. n., who had governed Sardinia i n 48 B . C . Since 8

his attribution to Further Spain is baseless, the halves of the peninsula which he and
'Lucius' governed are still undetermined.
Fischer's hypothesis that 'Lucius' is the praenomen of the distinguished soldier
0

10
Carrinas is refuted by the demonstration by Miinzer that the latter was called Caius.
Moreover, a Roman officer could not thus have been described b y his praenomen
alone. Appian's texts, weak on proper names," are guilty of corruptions when, else-
12
where, they describe an unknown consular as MccpKos and a victim of Antony's
13 14 1
displeasure as KOVIVTOS. Ganter and Miinzer * suggest rightly that the present word
AeuKiov is corrupt also. In all three cases a common praenomen is substituted for what
must have been a cognomen or gentiiicium. Whatever the explanation for MccpKos, a 16

examination of the present passage reveals that Aandou is the product of a particularly
easy dittographical error. Appian has been speaking of L . Antonius as AevKios, and
continues to do so even i n the very line following the sentence quoted: the passage
reads: ...FFeSouKaiou TS KCU [ A E V K I O V ] . OUTGO U£V Sf| KCCI AEVKIOV (SC. 'AVTCOVIOV) 6
KaTcrap aTrfrrEUTre cruv TIUTJ K . T . A . The self-evident corruption is explained b y these
coins with the name of C. Livius. Appian wrote AEIOVIOV. Livius is a name notoriously
17
often corrupted, and this very same error may perhaps be found i n Plutarch's
1
Delgado 1, p. 98; Madrid (del Rivero, Cat. p. 21). " BC. iv, 49. R. Syme points out the difficulties
2
Cohen, Description historique des monnaies involved by this personage.
frappees sous I*empire romain, Aug. 630. 1 3
BC. v, 4. 15; cf. Volkmann, Mimchener Beitr.
3
DN. I , p. 18. 1. Papyrusforschung, xxi, 1935, p. 21.
4
Chorografia del Convento juridico de Sevilla. 1 4
P. 14 n. 7.
5 E.g. Heiss, p. 333. 6
Cf. Delgado 1, pp. 86ff. '* PW. xui, 1652.
7 1 6
Senatus Romanus quifuerit Augusti temporibus, It is possible to conjecture a haplography for
Diss. Berlin, 1908, p. 32, no. 173. MccpKos M&pKios, and identification with the praetor
Klein, Die romischen Verwaltungsbeamten, 1, of that name of uncertain date (cf. Holzapfel,
8

11 Abt., p. 246, no. 59. For the family vide Syme, Rivista di storia antica, iv, pp. 55 ff., 456 ff.). The
RR. pp. 285, 200. praenomen was rare in the clan (Miinzer, PW. xiv,
PW. in, 1612. 1545 [23].
9 1 0
L.c.
11
E.g. K&pKtos for Carisius (BC. v, 3; Syme, RR. Cf. Cichorius, Romische Studien, p. 255; Dio
1 7

p. 236 n. 1). LIV, init.; Nepos, Att. xi, 2, etc.

 HEADS OF OFFICIALS O N T H ECOINAGES 381
1
description of Livius Ocella as AEUKIOV TleAAocv. Attribution of C. Livius to the legatio of
Farther Spain i n c. 40 is entirely i n accordance w i t h the character o f these pieces, whose
style suggests such a date, and whose portrait is less likely to be that o f a city official.
2
Livius cannot be identified, but for political reasons is more likely to be a Drusus
3
than an Ocella.
4
A n ever rarer issue o f another peregrine town i n the same province, Brutobriga,
presents a close parallel:
T . M A N L I V S 5 T . F. SERGIA., bare head to right
B R V T O B R I G A , galley and fish ( P i . X I I , 26).
6

A n earlier denarius has displayed the name o f a kinsman to the person here represented,
8
namely A . Manlius Q . f. Ser.7 Munzer points out that a reference to the tribe Sergia*
would have no numismatic parallel, and that the repetition o f the name, on coins o f
widely different dates, indicates that i t is rather a cognomen Sergia(nus). He shows also
10
that the Manlii and Sergii were closely connected. By analogy w i t h C. Livius i n the
same province, T . Manlius T . f. is almost certainly another legatus pro praetore of about
the same time. I t is significant that the name o f Lepidus's representative i n Hispania
Ulterior i n c. 42 is u n k n o w n : " Manlius may well help to fill the gap. He is plausibly
identifiable with T . Torquatus, described b y Cicero i n 45 B.C. as optimus adulescens. 17.

13
The latter word is applicable to any age up to f o r t y ; and there are many parallels
14
for the addition o f a second cognomen at this date, especially due to adoption.
Thus Vesci and Brutobriga appear to provide for history the names and features o f
two provincial legati, C. Livius and T . Manlius T . f. Torquatus Sergianus. These
coins are not comparable to the official issues o f the quaestor L . Appuleius Decianus i n
the same province (p. 24): the present persons hold a rank high enough to be honoured
by the cities, but not high enough to have flouted their superior Imperator by introduc-
ing their portraits, to his exclusion, on official coinage o f their own. I t may be added
that both o f the issues are likely to commemorate a grant o f privilege—in this case
Latin status—to their cities. Similar portraits occur to commemorate such promotions,
not only at Roman cities (p. 206), but also at peregrine Tralles (p. 382); and a large
number o f foundation-issues o f Latin communities have been identified (pp. 335 ff.).
Brutus, 42. But here perhaps onlyTOAAavis
1
Berlin, Madrid (del Rivero, Cat. p. 11); cf.
6

corrupt. Vives, in, p. 113. 1; Delgado 1, p. 45.

2
Cf. Fluss, PW. X I I I , 884; Mommsen, Ephemeris 7 BMCR. 11, p. 268.
epigraphica, I , 146. 8
PW. XIV, 1191.
3
Cf. Cichorius, I.e.; Munzer, PW. X I I I , 887. 9
Considered probable by Pais, del Rivero,
4
Not Segobriga: Kubitschek, SB. Wien, CLXVII, ll.ee.
Abh., 1911, p. 73 n. 2, pace Grotefend, Unedierte 1 0
PW. xiv, 1156 (18).
griechische und rdmische Mun^en (1864), pp. 28 ff.; 1 1
Wilsdorf, l.c. p. 134. For Citerior, see above,
Pais, Ricerche sulla storia ecc. ser. 11, p. 302. p. 212. x%
Pro Rege Deiotaro, 32.
5
Not MANIVS, pace Friedlander, ZfN. vm, 1 3
Lewis and Short, p. 46, s.v.
I
88i, p. 1 1 . X
4 Cf. Doer, Die rdmische Namengebung, pp. 96 ff.
382 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
1
Latinity was common i n Farther Spain, but the names o f its possessors have seldom
2
survived. Here, then, is a new aspect o f triumviral policy.
The triumvirate provides one more example o f a governor's portrait; this—like all
3
that follow—comes from the Eastern half o f the Empire. A coin o f Sparta, w i t h
AA. OIAI. and an eagle, has an expressive portrait labelled ATPATINOI ( P i . X I I , 3).
4
A n inscription from Hypata proves that L . Sempronius Atratinus was Resident i n
Achaia w i t h the rank o f legatus pro praetore, probably as the titular subordinate o f
the governor o f Macedonia (p. 37). Munzer* rightly assigns this governorship to the
years before the activities o f Atratinus i n the Sicilian campaign: official coinages
(p. 43) show that its outer limits are the autumn o f 39 and the spring o f 37. 6

A rare Spartan piece o f a smaller denomination has a similar head inscribed ATP.;7
commoner are precisely similar pieces w i t h ArP. These bear witness to a tactfiil
8

numismatic change accompanying the revolt to Octavian i n 32-31 :* by a fine economy

o f effort and resources the same dies and same features did service for Atratinus and
Agrippa.
Actium did not cause such coinages to cease. Issues o f Tralles are relevant to the
years immediately following the battle:
(1) n00AAIO)N KAIZAPEG)N, bare head to right, axe ( P i . I X , 31)—MENANAPOZ
10
TTAPPAIIOY, octastyle temple, caduceus.
(2) As last—Legend o f last. Head o f Zeus to right."
(3) OYHAIOZ KAIZAPECON, same head—As last."
(4) N o legend; same head—KAIZAPECON MEN AN APOZ T7APPAZIOY. T y p e o f (1). 13

(5) As last—KAIZAPECON; monograms o f MENANAPOZ T7APPAZIOY. Hands

1
clasped on caduceus. *
1
(6) KAIZAPECON, same head—Names i n full; same type. *
16
Bernoulli rightly points out that the heads are not those o f Augustus, but must repre-
sent P. Vedius Pollio himself. This well-known knight died i n 15 B . C . ; since he was
1 18
then out o f favour, ? i t is unlikely that, as von Sallet considers, the issues honour him
posthumously. As so often, a remarkable light is thrown on his official career by"
1
E.g. Strabo in, 151, etc. 1 0
BMC. 74; Milan, Cat. 413.
* Cf. Steinwenter, PW. x, 1269, etc. 1 1
Paris.
3 BMC. 69. 4
I L S . 9461 =IG. ix, 2. 39. 11
BMC. 76; Milan, Cat. 412, wrongly described
5 PW. (zR.), 11, 1367. by M. S. V I I , 466. 695. Coins with OYIAIOZ
6
As on the Spanish pieces, the portraits suggest NAZCoN have, of course, been tooled (Pansa, R.it.
the character of an honorary city coinage rather 1912, p. 171).
than an official series. This interpretation is con- 1 3
Berlin, cf. Imhoof-Blumer, Lyd. S. p. 173. 23.
firmed by the name of the local magistrate Phidi(p- Ibid. 25.
1 4 1 5
Ibid. 24.
pides?). 1 6
Romische Ikonographie, 1, pp. 254 f., wrongly
7 Berlin, Fox sale, 1334. doubted by Waddington, Rn. 1867, p. 121.
8
Berlin, cf. Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 172. 87. x
? Cf. PIR. m, 390. 213.
9 Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 100. ZfN. in, 1876, p. 136; cf. iv, 1877, p. 198.
1 8
 HEADS OF OFFICIALS ON THE COINAGES 383
inscriptions. One of these, which are both from Ephesus, consists of a pronouncement
1
EX C O N S T I T V T I O N E V E D I P O L L I O N I S ; a later edict describes Vedius's
a
measure as a 8tara§is. Constitutio was not used as early as Augustus as a collective
expression for Imperial legislation (p. 432)^ but indicates a decisive ruling o f some
4
kind. Such a decree by a knight is inconceivable, i n the province o f Asia, after the
restoration o f proconsular government i n 29-28 (p. 385); the earlier Ephesian i n -
scription must therefore be assigned to the years immediately following Actium, anri
with i t no doubt the coinage. Both inscription and coins, and many later Vedii at
Ephesus,* bear witness to Pollio's tenure o f some exceptional post. He is also com-
6
memorated at I l i u m . C. Proculeius (p. 66) provides a parallel for Octavian's allot-
ment o f provinces, at this date, to distinguished equestrians i n his confidence. More-
over, the princeps paid special attention to Asia during his residence i n 30-29,7 and
8
important financial reforms were probably carried out. These, and the province, were
clearly i n the hands o f P. Vedius Pollio, as procurator et praesesf His irregular position
accounts for the use o f the vague generality constitutio.
The occasion o f the coinage can be clearly identified. Tralles was refounded as a
stipendiary city, w i t h a core o f Roman residents (cf. p. 403) and the name o f Caesarea,
after the battle o f A c t i u m . A n army o f parallels (pp. 349 ff.) makes i t inevitable
10

that this coinage commemorates the occasion." Indeed, kindred pieces actually
12
record the allotment, b y the type o f a plough. The Roman cities have shown
that portraits, outside the domus principis as within i t , are peculiarly applicable to
foundations (p. 184); this interpretation also provides the key to many coinages i n the
present category.
The seventh governor to be honoured i n this way appears on two rare coins o f
Nicaea, which have both undergone drastic misreadings:

1
CIL. in, 1724. and Norbanus Flaccus (Waddington, l.c. 50, 51) to
2
Dorner, Der Erlass des Statthalters von Asia this period rather than to the years before 31 and
Paullus Fabius Persicus, Diss. Greifswald, 1935, after 28 respectively. PIR . 1, 186. 961 shows that
2

pp. 38 f., 42. the attribution by Broughton (ES. iv, p. 711) of

Jors, PJV. iv, 1106.
3
Sex. Appuleius to 29 is equally unjustifiable.
Cf. Livy xxxix, 53. 10; Cic. ProQuinctio, 7. 4.
4
Cf. Broughton, TAP A. L X V I , 1935, p. 22;
1 0

6 etc.
y Jones, CERP. p. 78. Cf. Attaleia and Amisus, also
E.g. CIL. in, 440 (early), 441, 442.
s
with non-colonial coloni, Broughton, I.e., cf. Korne-
Cf. Dorpfeld, Troja undllion, 11, p. 471. 66. mann, Berliner Studien fur classiscke Philoldgie und
7
Cf. Waddington, Pastes des provinces asiatiques, Archdologie, xiv, i , 1892, pp. 13, 28, 45, pace Viale,
49. Atti del primo Congresso di Studi Romani, 1, p. 363.
8
Syme, RR. p. 410. Marquardt's inclusion of Tralles among Roman
9
colonies (St.V. 1, p. 347) is righdy ignored by
Chapot's suggestion (La province romaine pro-
consulate d'Asie, p. 318) that he was proconsul can- Kornemann, but followed by Miss Newby (p. 85).
not be accepted, since he never rose above equestrian 11
Recognised, without reference to analogies, by
rank (PIR, i. . c Th i
e t c ; ) # evidence for the Hatzfeld, p. 171 n. 2.
e r e s n o

attribution of the proconsuls M. Herennius Picens " Berlin: Imhoof-Blumer, KM. 2.

384 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
( 1 ) NIKAIEttN head o f Thorius Flaccus to right ( P i . X I I , 9)—ETTI AN0YTTATOY
063PIOY OAA., HPA, two monograms o f local magistrates' names. Head o f
1
Juno Lanuvina to right.
(2) Same as last— ETH AN0YTTA[TOY 0]O)P[IOY OAA. or OAAKKOY], mono-
grams. Sella curulis?
3
The reverse type o f ( 1 ) is explained by the Lanuvian origin o f the T h o r i i : even i n
Rome Augustus's moneyers placed types connected w i t h their families on their coins.4
E. Babelon 5 recognises that neither portrait can represent Augustus. A l l specimens show
features o f an entirely distinctive character, whereas coins similarly inscribed, at Nicaea
and at Nicomedia (p. 353), provide accurate and realistic portraits o f the princeps. I t is
necessary, therefore, to assume that we have here the portrait o f the proconsul Thorius
Flaccus. His governorship can be dated w i t h some certainty, owing to a striking
6
similarity, noted by Cavedoni, between the Nicomedian piece, and an official tetra-
drachm o f 28 B.C.? A p . Claudius Pulcher was proconsul o f Bithynia-Pontus i n
28-27 B.C. (p. 255): Thorius Flaccus may confidently be assigned to 29-28. I t has
been pointed out i n connection w i t h the Augustan heads on other coins o f Thorius
that the occasion for issue was the elevation o f Nicaea and Nicomedia to the headship
o f the new KOIVOV BeiOwiccs (p. 353). Thorius, then, takes his place beside the
8
princeps and Vedius as Kricrrris. Mommsen points out that the legend on the tetra-
drachm o f 2 8 — L I B E R T A T I S P. R. VINDEX—suggests that the province where
they were struck had already been restored to normal government i n the course o f the
restitutio rei publicae (p. 424): since the tetradrachm belongs to Bithynia rather than
Asia where Mommsen used to attribute i t , i t is doubly relevant to the present local
series. This, too, commemorates not only the promotion o f Nicaea and Nicomedia,
but also the end o f the emergency period. I t honours w i t h portraiture the first
governor under the new regime; the predecessor o f Thorius was probably an equestrian
procurator like C. Proculeius or P. Vedius.
A n Asian city, Magnesia ad Sipylum, struck a coin which refers to the same con-
0
stitutional occasion:
1
Vienna University, Paris; Rec. 19. Scholz, 4
BMC. Imp. pp. cii ff.
NZ. 1910, p. 14. 45 completely misreads the coins, 5
Rec. ll.cc.
and attributes them to Pythodoris of Pontus. 6
Annali dell* Inst, di corr. arch. 1850, p. 199;
2
Vienna; misread by Rec. 21, which gives the confirmed by Bosch, KM. p. 78; cf. Ganter, p.
legend as ElII AN0YTTATOY only. A coin quoted 34.
as uncertain by M. S. iv, 669. 390 (Mus. Sancle- 7 BMC. Imp. Aug. 691.
ment. Num. Select. I I , p. 28) supplies vital letters 8
RGDA*. p. 147; cf. also Stuart Jones, CAH*
which show that the proconsul is again Thorius; x, pp. 123, 127; Weber, Princeps, 1, p. 139 n. 5575
but the obverse of this is entirely misinterpreted. Barwick, Philologus, xci, 1936, p. 352.
For ETTI see pp. 396 ff. 9 Munich, BMC. 13; illustrated by Mattingly?
3 Cf. C I L . xiv, p. 192; cf. Fluss, PW.(iR.\ vi, RC. PI. L I , 4.
346; PIR. H I , 313. 134.
 HEADS OF OFFICIALS O N T H E COINAGES 385
MAPKOZ T Y A A I O I KIKEPCON bare-headed portrait to right ( P i . I X , 32)—
MArNHTOON TCON A n O IIITYAOY 0EOAO3POI hand holding vine-wreath and
corn-ears.
1
Mommsen's view that the portrait is that o f the orator Cicero is refuted both by
iconographical considerations* and by the political inadvisability o f such a gesture
3 4
under Augustus, to whose principate the coin, for stylistic reasons, must belong.
Since Borghesi* is certainly wrong i n seeing the features o f the princeps himself, the
6 7
head may be attributed, w i t h Muller and Bernoulli, to the orator's son M . Tullius
8
Cicero, whom we know from Seneca to have held the proconsulate o f Asia under
Augustus. Since he was consul suffectus i n 30 B.c.,9 and already legatus o f Syria before
23, Waddington rightly maintains that his proconsulate fell not long after A c t i u m :
10 11

infractions o f the Lex Pompeia, requiring a five-year interval after consulships, were
12 13
frequent during the civil wars, and occurred also i n the early principate. Since the
signal honour here paid to M . Cicero is only paralleled by the case o f Thorius Flaccus, i t
is very probable that his appointment i n Asia, like that o f Thorius i n Bithynia (p. 384),
inaugurated the return to 'Republican' government after the dictatorial regime o f
Octavian's procurator Vedius Pollio; very probably too, he refounded Magnesia ad
14
Sipylum in the stipendiary right. The restitutio o f senatorial regimes began earlier than
28: Thorius became governor i n the previous year, and M . Licinius Crassus exception-
ally received a Balkan command as proconsul i n 30/5 under Octavian's maius imperium
(p. 421). I n Asia, then, Cicero probably succeeded Vedius on Octavian's departure
for the West i n 29 (p. 422).
After an interval, another group o f such coinages is provided by Chalcis i n Euboea:
(1) A. POYOINOI AN0YTTATOI bare head to right—XAAKII female head to
right (PL X I I , 1). 16

1
Hermes, m, 1869, p. 269. 1 4
Cf. Jones, GC. p. 130; id. Anatolian Studies to
2
Bernoulli, Rdmische Ikonographie, 1, p. 134. Buckler, p. 116; pace Broughton, ES. iv, p. 708.
3
Cf. Waddington, Rn. 1867; Melanges numis- It is noteworthy that Magnesia never portrays
matiques, 2 ser., 11, p. 133. Augustus in his lifetime. Cf. above, p. 350.
4
Under Antony it would be even less suitable. 1 5
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 117.
5
(Euvres, 1, p. 171. 1 6
The true inscription is shown by Weber, 1611
6
ZfN. 1875, P- 298. L.c. 7
(cf. Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 223. 56). The Paris
8
Suasoriae, vn, 13; cf. PIR. in, 338. 272^. specimen reading A. M..IINOZ has been tooled.
9
CIL. i , p. 61.
2
A similar alteration on a coin at Milan (M. S. iv, 362.
10
Appian, BC. iv, 51; cf. Waddington, Fastes des 74; Milan Cat. 334) has had wider consequences:
provinces asiatiques, 53. Of Syme's suggestions, the false reading A • AIOY has been accepted
29-27 and 27-25 (RR. p. 303 n. 1), the latter is the by Fischer (Senatus Romanus qui fuerit Augusti
more probable. Ibid. 1 1
temporihus, Diss. Berlin, 1908, p. 62. 435), Box
1 2
Chapot, La province romaine proconsulate (JRS. xxn, 1932, p. 174), Dessau (PIR. 11, 289.
d'Asie, p. 282. 198), Heiligenstadt (Fasti aedilicii, Diss. Halle, 1910,
13
E.g. Renault, Bulletin archeologique du Comite p. 39) and Groag, SB. ix, 1939, p. 18, but is refuted
des travaux historiques etscientifiques, 1897, pp. 250ff. by Muensterberg (Beamtennamen, s.v.).
386 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
(2) MEZKINIOZ 5TPA. bare head to right—XAAKIAECON same head. (Pi. X I I ,
2).'
2
These are the only issues o f Chalcis i n the principate o f Augustus, and are i n most
3
respects u n i f o r m : only, Rufinus is called OCV60TTC<TOS and Mescinius cnpcnr|y6s.
There are several reasons for believing that the latter is not a local official. I n the first
place, Rufinus pro cos. provides the only analogy for his issue. Secondly, the legends,
and certain curiosities o f portraiture, indicate that the heads can scarcely represent
Augustus, as they have always been considered to. Similar mistakes have been noted
at African colonies (p. 228); and partial adaptation o f the features o f lesser men to
resemble the princeps is one o f the commonest o f iconographical phenomena (cf. p. 364).
I t seems likely therefore, from internal evidence, that Mescinius was a governor o f
4
Achaia like Rufinus.
A n explanation for the divergency o f their titles, AN0YTTATOZ arid ZTPA(*rr|y6c),
is at hand. There is ample evidence for intervention by Agrippa i n 'senatorial* pro-
vinces after 18 B . C . (p. 428), including two letters, reported by Josephus, sent by him
6
to Silanus (?)* i n Asia and Flavius ( ? ) i n Cyrenaica. N o w both o f these are addressed
as plain o T p o r r r i y o i . Waddington? has accordingly argued that they were technically
subordinate to Agrippa, who must therefore have been governing the Eastern pro-
vinces through his legati? Chapot objected that the transcription b y Josephus may
9

have been inexact: but a coin o f Q. Articuleius (?) Regulus (p. 125) shows that, at
least i n the 'imperial' province o f Syria, Agrippa* s agent at this time was actually called
oTpcariyos w i t h official correctness. The terminology of Josephus need not, therefore,
be inaccurate. Moreover, orpcrrriyos was a correct rendering o f the title o f a praetorian
legatus, i n a ' senatorial' as well as an ' imperial' province. I t is therefore highly prob-
10

able that Mescinius, like Flavius and Silanus, held such a post. N o t only is the evidence
o f the coinage strongly i n favour o f this view, but, as w i l l be shown elsewhere, the
theory that Agrippa possessed an imperium maius is entirely inadmissible (p. 429).
Agrippa did not override proconsuls—a situation that would have recalled the past
days o f martial illegality—but merely possessed, w i t h perfect constitutional correct-
ness, a provincia o f unusual size. This is not the first time that cities o f Achaia had
extended the privilege o f portraiture to their governors: Sparta honoured L . Atratinus
i n this way, and the same issues add to the series b y the discreet alteration, on some
1
Berlin, Athens; Imhoof-Blumer, MG. p. 223. 4
Cf. Fluss, PW. xv, 1078; pace Dessau, PIR.
57; cf. Rn. 1883, p. 66 n. 7. 11, 366. 361, Groag, SB. ix, 1939, p. 22.'
2
Another governor's portrait has been derived 5 AJ. xvi, 6. 4; or Silvanus. The identification in
from a coin at Paris with AOP1KAN., and a type PIR. 11, 246. 549 is unlikely.
of three nymphs. But it is clear that this has been 6
AJ. xvi, 6. 5; PIR. 11, 133; perhaps Fabius.
drastically altered in modern times from BMC. 52ff. 7
Fastes des provinces asiatiques, p. 89.
of Tanagra (p. 463). 8
Cf. Zumpt, Commenta epigrapkica, 11, p. 8b.
3
No importance can be attached to the variety 9
L.c. p. 284.
of ethnic. 1 0
It emphasised his rank rather than his office.
 HEADS OF OFFICIALS O N T H E COINAGES 387
pieces, of ATP(onrTvos) to ArP(iTnras) (p. 382). The adapted issue may well have
been produced during Agrippa's government o f the East, i n honour o f that exception-
ally important proconsul. Chalcis, however, prefers to flatter his subordinate who is
on the spot, the acting-governor Mescinius.
1 2
Rufinus is probably to be identified w i t h a curule aedile o f the same name. Renier
assigns him to the gens Cornelia, but he is much more likely to be a relative o f C.
Vibius Rufinus who was consul suffectus under Tiberius. L . Rufinus must have 3

4
governed Achaia either before or after Agrippa's tenure. Since all preceding coinage i n
this Chapter may have been foundation-coinages, i t is quite possible that the issues
honouring Mescinius and Rufinus belong to the now familiar category o f double
mintages from a foundation-fund (p. 291). I f so Rufinus w i l l be very close in date to
18 or 13—probably the former, since the 'programme' ethnic XAAKIZ suggests that
his is the first o f the two issues.
In c. 7 B . C . a new era began in which portraiture was limited to amiciprincipis (p. 229).
The three Asian coinages which inaugurated this custom are the following:

(1) Temnus. A I 1 N I O I TAAAOI ArNOI, head o f C. Asinius Gallus to right (Pi.

I X , 33)—ATTOAAAZ OAINIOY TAMNITAN, garlanded head o f Dionysus to
right.5
(2) Pitane. TT. IKlTTlOuNA, head o f P. Cornelius P. f. P. n. Scipio to right—
IEBAZTON T1ITANAIOI head o f Augustus to right; small head o f Ammon,
6
pentalpha.
(3) A series o f Hierapolis with OABIOI MA21MOI, head o f Paullus Fabius Q. f.
Maximus to right (Pi. X I , 58). Names on the reverse include Tryphon, 7

8 0 10 12
Dryas, Theocritus, Bryon, Zosimus Philopatris Charax," and Cocus.

C. Asinius Gallus was governor in 6-5 B . C . , and the other two i n the same period:
1 3

perhaps Scipio was his predecessor and Fabius his successor. * We have seen (p. 229)
14 1

that all three were members o f Augustus's circle, and that the coinage w i t h their heads
was" intended as propaganda for the new amicitia. Asinius's title ccyvos—applied else-
1
CIL. xiv, 2866; cf. Heiligenstadt, Fasti, Diss. 8
KM. 14. 9 KM. 15.
Halle, 1910, p. 39. 1 0
Wad. 6142. 1 1
BMC. 93.
2
Rev. arch. N.S. ix, 1864, p. 210. 1 2
Berlin, cf. L . Weber, Charites, 486.
3
PIR. in, 424. 395. (I owe this suggestion 1 3 2
PIR .1, 245. 1229; cf. CIL. 111, 6070.
1 4
to R. Syme.) This Rufinus is considered by Chapot, La province romaine proconsulate
Mommsen, Korrespondeniblatt der Westdeutschen d'Asie, p. 309; pace Muller, ZfN. 1875, p. 307, who
Zeitschrift, vn, 1888, p. 58 n. 2, to be the son of preferred I I - I O B . C Waddington, Pastes des pro-
a C. Vibius Rufus, but this is uncertain. vinces asiatiques, 56, and Groag, PIR .11, 354. 1438,
2

4
Vide Fischer, Diss, c , p. 62. are doubtful.
* BMC. 24 (Temnus). 5 As Muller, l.c. But Syme, RR. p. 395, ascribes
x

Wad. 991, Vienna (Pitane). him to 9-8 and Usener, Bull. delV Inst, di corr. arch.
7
BMC. 95 (Hierapolis). 1874, p. 80 to 8-7.
388 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
1 2
where to a few Greeks, but generally reserved for Roman governors —lends him a
3
measure o f the superhumanity o f the Zepoccrros himself, and so gives his position a
religious flavour, w i t h which Imperial portraiture is likewise endowed. The Hellenistic
ouyyevels too had possessed a measure o f their master's divinity. I t is by no means
improbable that the three proconsuls were, like M . Cicero and Thorius Flaccus, re-
sponsible for reorganisations of the cities which honoured them i n this way (pp. 384 f.).
Some years later another amicus principis is honoured at Pergamum:
ZEBAZTON AHMOCD60N Augustus standing i n tetrastyle temple—TTEPrAMHNOI
4
ZIABANON M . Plautius Silvanus standing, being crowned by a god.
I n general, perhaps, such a full-length portrayal is less honorific than a portrait-bust;
but i n the present case the implied equation w i t h the princeps removes any. such dis-
ability. Various dates have been mentioned for the governorship o f Silvanus, including
A . D . 1-2,5 4-5, 5~6, and 6-7; ,Syme has recently established the particular prob-
6 7 8

ability o f 4-5. Like his three predecessors who are granted this numismatic distinction,
Silvanus was connected to Augustus by marriage, being the son o f Livia's friend
Urgulania: he was therefore one o f his amicL
The only remaining Augustan coinage honouring by its portrait an amicus principis
is from Priene, i n the same province. I t celebrates one who is not a governor:
OZ MAKEP, portrait to right—TTPIHNEGON Zeus standing to left b y
tripod-altar (Pi. I X , 34).*
10
The head is clearly not that o f a princeps but o f the personage described. E. Babelon's
interpretation o f the name as that o f C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, o f the time o f
Severus Alexander, is entirely misplaced, since on grounds o f style the issue could
hardly be as late even as Tiberius, far less o f the third century. A passage from Strabo
can be cited to provide an identification. He speaks o f a M . Pompeius who was pro-
11 12
curator o f Asia under Augustus; Hillscher rightly emends the passage to show that
this was the son, not the grandson, o f Theophanes. This M . Pompeius had a son called
13
Macer, and may therefore be identified w i t h the Pompeius Macer who was the
14
librarian o f Augustus. Since the latter served as procurator i n Asia, there is every
reason to accept MuensterbergV5 identification o f him w i t h the Macer represented on
1
Muensterberg, Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Inst, in 8
Klio, xxvn, 1934, p. 139; cf. Waddington,
Wien, xviii, 1915, Beibl. p. 308; pace Imhoof- Fastes des provinces asiatigues, 64 (correcting Rn.
Blumer, KM. 287. 1867).
2
Benndorf, Festhefte der Wiener Studenten fur 9 Wad. 1928. 1 0
Arethuse, I , 1923, p. 3.
Bormann, p. 18. 1 1
X I I I , 618.
3
It is applied to gods—CIG. 5431, 5643, etc. 1 2
Jahrhiicher fur classische Philologie, Suppl. X V I I I ,
4
BMC. 242 (Pergamum). 1891, p. 427.
5 Cf. PIR. H I , 46. 361. 6
Waddington, l.c. 1 3
Cf. Dessau, PIR. 111, 67. 471; Syme, RR.
7
Groag, Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Inst, xxn, p. 367.
Beibl. 1924, pp. 467 f. 1 4
Suet. Caes. 56. x
* Beamtennamen, s.V.
 HEADS OF OFFICIALS O N THE COINAGES 389
the coin. The issues o f Tralles w i t h portraits o f P. Vedius Pollio (p. 382) show that no
1

objection was felt to honouring knights i n this way. Moreover, Asia was a province i n
3
which Augustus's procurator was already o f particular importance; his power was
3
quite sufficient to warrant cultivation by the city o f Priene, which he may well, by
analogy with the governors discussed, have 'refounded' i n some way. I t is less than
half-a-century before coins o f the neighbouring province o f Bithynia even honour
4
similar procurators w i t h eponymy, by the side o f their proconsuls. The passage o f
Strabo seems to indicate that i t was this M . Pompeius Macer, rather than his son, who
became one o f the intimate circle o f Tiberius;* i f that is so, his procuratorship o f
6
Asia is likely to fall late rather than early i n the principate o f Augustus. The coin i n
his honour provides an unusual piece o f evidence regarding the prestige o f these
officials under the first princeps—when they were his amiciJ For portraiture had
become a privilege restricted to the Imperial family and those whom its head honoured
with the title o f his Friends. O f Bildnisrecht however there can be no question: these
8
personages do not usurp the authority for the coins which bear their heads.
1
But his citation of a Prienean inscription 5
Cf. Dessau, PIR. in, 67. 472, 473; pace
(Jnschriften von Priene 247) to confirm this is Hillscher, l.c.
irrelevant, since the Pompeius there is Cnaeus or 6
Cf. Klein, Die romischen Verwaltungsbeamten,
Caius, and need not be Macer. 1, pp. 180 ff.
2
Cf. Rostovtzeff, Archiv fur+Papyrusforschung, 7
Hirschfeld, Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeam-
Beih. I , 1910, p. 287. ten, p. 449; Horovitz, Revue beige de philologie et
3 In addition, the Pompeii Macri were con- d'histoire, X V I I , 1938, p. 778, point out that knights
siderable landowners in Asia; cf. Broughton, ES. often belonged to this class.
iv, p. 649; Strabo X I I I . For some later examples, with which I hope to
8

4
Rostovtzeff, Annals of the British School at deal elsewhere, see pi. X I I , 4, 10, 11, 16, 17.
Athens, xxn, 1916-18; cf. Seltman, NC. 1928, p. 102.
390 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE ROMAN OFFICIALS

B. N A M E S O F O F F I C I A L S O N T H E C O I N A G E S

This subject presents considerable variety, since modes o f expression were not yet
stereotyped. I n the last years of the Republic, in which most variations are encountered,
the names appear in various Cases, and, as later, with the preposition eiri. Between each
1
usage there are more or less subtle nuances o f difference. These are particularly diffi-
cult to define owing to two tendencies i n the Greek spoken and written at this period:
the slovenliness o f the Koivr| frequently caused confusion between Case-usages, and 2

3
the influence o f Latin often perverted them. Occasionally too i t is hard to draw the
4
line between peregrine city-coinages o f this type and official currencies. But the
constitutional significance o f this group o f coins can generally be reached across such
technical obstacles. The various Case-endings w i l l be considered separately: besides
5
those already met w i t h i n the last section, fifteen names are represented, including
some hitherto unidentified.
( i ) The Accusative Case is used for the names o f P. Cornelius Scipio and M .
Plautius Silvanus (pp. 387f.) accompanying their portraits. I t presents no ambiguity: i t
6
is clearly regarded as the Object o f a verb, as on the reverses o f Roman official pieces.
7
The titulature o f the princeps is also occasionally couched i n this form, both i n L a t i n
8
and i n Greek. The usage is thus purely honorary and dedicative.? Only one instance
without a portrait can be cited, and that depends on a new interpretation:
\I. A H M . head o f Aphrodite (?) to right—ANTIT7. AET7. or ANTI. AETTI.
10 11

(Pi. I X , 2 8 ) ; Nike crowning a trophy.

12

1
Cf. Pansa, R.it. 1909, p. 377. Appuleius Decianus q. (p. 24) at various mints (with-
2
Regard, Des Prepositions dans la langue du out complete ethnics) were apparently official. The
Nouveau Testament, p. 429. coinages that will here be discussed include every
3
Muensterberg, MBNGW. ix (1913), p. 161. category where there is no reason to make the same
4
The following rules have been applied. When deduction, including a number of co-operative series
the Roman official and his needs are predominant, where the needs of the community were a primary
the issues have been described in Part I : the ap- consideration, and three where an indemnity had
pearance of his name, written in Latin, on an other- to be paid, but the mint was demonstrably not
wise Greek coin, has been considered to warrant commandeered. Cf. above, p. 1 n. 1.
definition as official (cf. Broughton, AJA. 1937, These are recapitulated under their relevant
5

p. 249). But the final test is that of scope and circu- headings here.
lation: inclusion in Part I is necessitated by a proof Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. pp. lxxiv, ccxxvi.
6

of military rather than of purely local needs, and an E.g. at Corinth (Augustus) (Muensterberg,
7

endeavour has been made to supply this for every Kaisernamen).

coinage there described. A complete border-line E.g. at Smyrna, Hypaepa, Pergamum (Au-
8

case is provided by the co-operative issue of the gustus). Cf. above, p. 360.
naval commander L. Arruntanus Balbus and the Cf. Stuart, Portraiture of Claudius, Preliminary
9

city-mint of Melita (p. 59): both parties display Studies, p. 13.

their names, in their respective tongues and in full. Variant readings given by M. S. 1, 130. 9 ff. are
1 0

In this case, however, the currency was clearly in- not authentic. 1 1
BM.
tended for Roman troops, as many contemporary *\ Berlin (unattributed). Unfortunately the ob-
analogies show. In the same way, the issues of L . verse of this coin is almost obliterated.
 NAMES OF OFFICIALS O N T H E COINAGES 391
The ethnic (confirmed by the style) indicates attribution to Antipolis, i n Gallia Narbon-
1
ensis. Only a single restoration has hitherto been attempted: Blanchet, followed by
2
Willers, reads [ E ] I Z AHM(ov) ANTin(oAiTcov) AETT(i8os), and observes that this
may be considered a restrictive formula Qimitant la circulation de la piece au seul
territoire de cette cite). But this interpretation is unparalleled and unplausible. The only
analogy which Blanchet can find for his reading EIZ — EIZ GANATOYZ(icc) KYPIOY
3
on a coin o f Severus —is wholly irrelevant. N o issue at a city b y governor or triumvir
is, or could be, described b y the inscription which he suggests.
On the other hand, an alternative explanation can be supported b y numerous
analogies: [KT]IZ(TT|V) AHM(os) ANTITI(oAiTcov) AEn(i8ov). I n the first place, this
is an orthodox and understandable mode o f expression: elsewhere, at the same date,
we find ANTIOXON O AHMOZ MIAHTOTTOAITOOW (Pi. X I , 60, obverse). Secondly,
it has great historical plausibility. Antipolis gained the Latin right in time for inclusion
in Pliny's list;5 the date has not yet been ascertained—the Roman and Latin colonies i n
Gaul were founded at various times (p. 210)—but i t is known that i n the years 44-43,
6
in which Lepidus first became governor o f Narbonensis, foundations were made i n
7
both the Transalpine provinces. A third reason for this interpretation is its exceptional
numismatic probability. The ramifications o f Roman foundation series have been
discussed, and a number celebrating the conferment o f Latinity have been added to
them (p. 335). The present issue displays all their characteristics, w i t h the natural
linguistic modification caused by the official survival o f the Greek tongue at Latin
8
cities i n Gaul. This issue at Antipolis is the only one o f its city: other Latin towns,
besides many o f Roman rank, likewise have isolated issues, and nearly all are i n -
auguratory (p. 473). Again, this coin bears the name o f a governor such as appears on
the currency o f Roman cities also—but exclusively (when there is no portrait) to
commemorate a foundation. This only differs from other Latin foundation-issues i n
that i t curiously mingles the characteristics o f peregrine and o f Roman foundation
coinage. But such a mixture is entirely appropriate to the Latin status (p. 335). As
with Scipio and Silvanus, the Accusative Case is again honorary and dedicatory; but
the dedication here is due to the special occasion o f KTICTUO, like the commemoration
of Vedius at Tralles (p. 382).
(2) Uncertain Case. Examples o f usage that is no longer merely honorary may be
introduced by the citation o f two tribal issues o f Gallia Comata. Several small coins
have A . H I R . I M P . and a lion, together w i t h the names and busts o f local chiefs,

1
Traiti, p. 442. 6
Cf. CAH. x, p. 13, etc.
* NZ. 1909, p. 80 n. 1. 7
Cf. Hirschfeld, CIL. xm. 1, p. 250; Willers,
NZ. 1902, p. 66, etc.
XS. XIII, 1905, p. 208; Winterthur. 8
E.g. also Avennio: Blanchet, Traiti, pp. 440 f.;
5
PHny, NH. m, 35. cf. Pliny, NH. 111, 35. Cf. below, p. 474.
392 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
Inecriturix, Athedias (Pi. I X , 24), and Coriarcos (?),' who have been rightly attributed
to the Rerni. A . Hirtius was responsible for an official coinage i n 50 B . C . (p. 3). But
2

at that time he did not, as here, hold the title imperator, and indeed held no military
command, but a private secretarial appointment. His salutation occurred during a
later residence i n Gaul, as pro praetore, i n 45-44, and i t is to this occasion that the
3

present coins must be referred. The names o f the chieftains make i t clear that the
immediate responsibility for the issues was i n tribal hands; thus the coinage cannot be
called official. But the reference to Hirtius is unlikely to be entirely honorary, and some
4
form o f co-operation or control seems to be indicated. The same is probably true o f
the tribal coins w i t h L . M V N A T L , the name o f Hirtius's successor, Plancus (Pi. I X ,
26): on the reverse, again, is the name o f a local dignitary, A T T A L V [ S ] . 5 This issue
too may have a connection w i t h the governor's salutation as imperator, during his
tenure o f 44-43. But the tribe is unidentifiable.
6 7

The late Republic supplies three further Case-usages which can be interpreted w i t h
greater certainty as providing evidence for such co-operation.
(3) The Nominative Case is used i n conjunction w i t h most o f the portraits described
i n the previous section. O n those issues its significance is merely commemorative; but
when no portrait appears, the character o f the Case obviously leaves room for ambi-
8
guities. Clearly, its significance can be either honorary or expressive o f the source o f
issue.? That the latter o f these meanings may well be expected on Greek coins is
10
proved by its interchangeability with the Genitive after A l A . Again the late Republic
provides but a single example o f the use o f this Case without a portrait, at Agrigentum:
1 2
ZGOZIOZ head o f Demeter to right—AKPArANTINOON Asclepius." H i l l considers
the personage here named to be a local magistrate: but two contemporary Sicilian
coins, o f similar style but w i t h a different Case-ending, suggest a special usage due to
the emergencies o f the period:

(4) Genitive Case.

(1) Entella. ATPATINOY radiate bust o f Helios to right—ENTEAAINCON
1
Homonoia (?) standing to left w i t h patera and cornucopiae. *
1
Blanchet, Traite, pp. 382 f. 7 Cf. Willers, NZ. 1909, p. 79, correcting
2
Maxe-Werly, £tat actuel de la numismatique Hirschfeld, CIL. xm, p. 251.
rcmoise, p. 12. 8
Cf. Pansa, R.it. 1909, pp. 376; Stuart, l.c. p. 14*
3
Munzer, PW.vui, 1956 f. This category includes eponymous usages. '
4
Cf. Willers, NZ. xxxiv, 1902, p. 79; Lenor- 9 Pj k, ZfN. xiv, 1887, pp. 296 ff.; Mommsen,
c

mant, La monnaie dans V Antiquite, 11, pp. 315, 342. St.B}. 11, 1, p. 261 n. 1. Mattingly (BMC. Imp.
5
BM, Paris; cf. Robert, Rn. 1859, p. 250; p. lxix) attributes the regular Imperial titulature to
Blanchet, Traiti, pp. 100,426; De la Tour, Atlas des this category.
monnaies gauloises, pi. VII, 4794-5. In view of the 1 0
E.g. at Apollonia Salbace (Trajan, KM. 120 £)•
analogy of Hirtius it is unlikely that L. Munatius is 1 1
Holm 602; BCOZIOI (sic) on BMC. p. 22.153*
other than Plancus himself (p. 206). " Coinage of Sicily, p. 210.
6
Cf. Hanslik, PW. xvi, 548. 1 3
Holm 607, 6oja=BMC. p. 61. 8.
 NAMES OF OFFICIALS O N THE COINAGES 393
(2) Lilybaeum. ATPATINO. rTYGIGuN serpent on altar—A1AYBAIITAII veiled
1
head to right.

The signatory o f both these pieces must be L . Sempronius Atratinus, who brought
an Antonian squadron to Octavian's assistance against Sextus Pompeius after the
Treaty o f Tarentum (p. 44). This must be the occasion o f the Sicilian issues w i t h his
name. The similarity o f these to the Agrigentine pieces signed b y Sosius enable us
to deduce that the Sicilian campaign attracted yet another naval officer o f Antony, C.
Sosius, who coined at Zacynthus (p. 39). I t is on general grounds extremely probable
that the Zacynthine fleet-station, which had easy access to Sicily, sent its quota o f ships
and men together w i t h those o f Atratinus and M . Oppius Capito (pp. 43,52), and there
is no reason w h y its commander should not have brought them i n person; none of his
coinage at Zacynthus is dated to 36.
Even i f viewed apart from the issue o f Sosius, the coinage i n the name o f Atratinus
presents features o f great interest. The delay i n Octavian's capture o f Lilybaeum until
after the battle o f Naulochus provides an upper limit o f September 36 for the coinage.
2

This terminus may be applied also to the analogous issue of Entella. But Octavian had
3
already dismissed the Antonian forces and ships to Tarentum before he left for Rome
—where he arrived on November 13 t h . These chronological limits for the mintages
4

naming Antony's officers are so narrow that i t is possible to discern their raison d'itre.
After Naulochus, and the subsequent capitulation o f Lepidus, Octavian imposed on
some of the Sicilian towns an indemnity amounting to 1600 talents.* The present issues
cannot have been intended for fleet-stations, since Entella is inland: nor can Atratinus
—or Sosius—have held a governorship, since the first governor under the new ad-
ministration was T . Statilius Taurus (p. 53). The names o f the two commanders on
these coinages strongly suggest that the indemnity was partially levied i n bronze coin,
and that, in autumn o f 36, officers were sent round the unfortunate cities to collect it.
This view is confirmed by the legend o f (2), as rightly interpreted by Muensterberg. 6

By way of precedent for a later custom, a private citizen defrays the cost o f the issue.
But here the gesture o f Pythion is invested w i t h a special significance. He is making
a voluntary contribution to the indemnity. The appearance o f his name indicates that
this is not a true official issue: the name of Atratinus merely explains the special circum-
stances which prompted i t . The analogy o f Atratinus again applies to Sosius also.
Thus neither the Genitive o f the one nor the Nominative o f the other are purely
7
honorary: the former is rather Possessive, like a similar usage on Roman official coins.
I t is also noteworthy that plain Genitive inflections are later interchangeable w i t h uses
not only o f the eponymous ETII, which implies a general control (p. 397), but even o f
8

1
BMC. 5, Brussels. » Cf. Levi 11, p. 83. 6
MBNGJV. vm, 1911, pp. 357 ff.
4 £PP > BC. v, 129.
ian
7 Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. lxix.
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 64. 8
E.g. Synnada (Claudius Valerianus, KM. 9;
Appian, I.e.; Dio X L I X , 12. 5. cf. BMC. 34), etc.
394 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
1
AIA, which states actual control o f the issue. The Nominative inflection o f Sosius is
likewise not otiose. These are instances not o f co-operation, nor o f control or expro-
priation o f the local mints, but o f their compulsion to produce coin by whatever
methods they chose. The Greek rendering o f the names o f Atratinus and Sosius
confirms that these exceptional issues may be considered local rather than official.
Plutarch and Appian enable us to reconstruct, from these coins, a lost Chapter o f
history. I t is a curious coincidence that both the officers whose brutal task is thus
commemorated were Antonian: Lepidus was not the only triumvir who coveted
Sicily from Octavian (p. 51). I n later years we hear that Antony's worst grievance was
his exclusion from the island: ueyicrra fjv &v SvsKccXei 6TI TTouTrrjiou ZiKeXiccv
ctyeAonevos (sc. 6 KoacTccp) OUK sveiue u£pos carrop *rfjs vrjcrou.* Sosius and Atratinus
were employed among the cities o f Sicily at the very time when such dispositions
hung i n the balance. Moreover, a coin o f M . Oppius Capito at Lipara (p. 52) was only
a little earlier. This numismatic record o f Antonian officers is relevant to Octavian's
prompt dismissal o f the Antonian contingents to Tarentum. There they languished
without employment for a few months; then, i n Spring 35, he sent back to the East
what remained o f the ships, w i t h replacements, without waiting for Antony to ask for
them.3 This ungracious behaviour is significant i n view o f Antony's claim to Sicily
and the activity o f his lieutenants there: Sosius was known for his hostility to Octavian.
I t is possible, then, to infer that he and Atratinus, who held at least three key-points o f
Western Sicily, were suspected o f working to satisfy their master's claim. Thus i t was
that Octavian, whose relations w i t h Antony were otherwise good enough at this time
4
to warrant the promulgation o f joint instructions, hastily terminated their employ-
ment. Sosius was discreetly honoured w i t h an overdue triumph,* Atratinus w i t h the
6
consulship to which he was destined; M . Oppius Capito (whose Fleet coinage at
Tarentum had explicitly described him as praefectus classis [p. 43]) was no doubt
entrusted w i t h the return o f the ships to Antony. Thus ended a situation replete with
danger to peace and to Octavian.
7
There is another isolated use o f the Genitive i n the same period:
AIINIOY AN0YTTATOY PO)MAIO)N Caduceus—fore-part o f horse to right, coiled
serpent, and a monogram which has been interpreted as ATAP(veiTcov), but is far
8
more probably AAPAMYT(r|vcov).
Adramyttium is the only city i n Asia (to which this coin must be attributed on .
grounds o f style) which is known to use a monogrammed ethnic i n this period; there
are a number o f variations o f this, all approximating closely to the present example but
1
E.g. Apollonia Salbace (Faustina jun., Wad. second Edict of Rhosus (Levi, Rivista difilologia,
2244; cf. BMC. 55). 1938, p. 114).
a
Plutarch, Ant. 55. 5 C I L . I , p. 76; cf. Fluss, PW.(T.R.\
2
H I . 117*-
3
CAH. x, p. 92; Levi 11, p. 134; cf. Dio XLIX, 14.6. 6
Cf. Munzer, PW. 11, 1367.
4
This is the latest and best interpretation of the 7
BMC. Mysia, pi. 14, 7. 8
Monogram 13.
 NAMES OF OFFICIALS O N T H E COINAGES 395
1 2 3
apparently including only the first four letters. W r o t h , Mommsen and Waddington*
identify Asinius w i t h the father o f Augustus's friend Pollio; but that would necessitate
attribution o f the coin to the seventies o f the last century B . C . , which is entirely
incompatible with its style. This suggests a date not earlier than the thirties or forties—
5
when Atarneus had virtually ceased to exist —and shows particular kinship w i t h early
6
Augustan coins o f Adramyttium. Furthermore, as R. Syme points out to the writer,
the Asinii were i n the seventies a distressed family who are unlikely yet to have
attained a governorship.
7
Thus stylistic and social considerations confirm Groag's identification o f the
governor (ctvOuTrccros) w i t h the elder brother o f Vergil's patron, namely Asinius
Marrucinus* whose table manners are rebuked by Catullus.9 Historical and numis-
10
matic considerations can be combined i n support o f this view. Ganter and Raillard"
supply, for the Fasti o f Asia during the triumvirate, only L . Munatius Plancus (39-37)
and C. Furnius (36-35 or longer). The former o f these should rather be dated c.
41—39/8 (p. 241), so that M . Cocceius Nerva, whom Syme" adds, w i l l have governed
between c. 39/8 and 36 (ibid.). Cuntz plausibly suggests the ascription o f M .
13

Herennius Picens to c. 33-32; coins o f Lampsacus and Akbanda have added M .

Turius legatus (42-41) and T . Octaviuspro cos. (c. 32-31) (pp. 246,373). There remain
one or two gaps between 39 and 36, and others i n 35-33.
It will here be argued that the year 35-34 should be assigned to Asinius Marrucinus.
14 15
Syme considers that a dedication warrants the assumption that M . Titius held
16
the post i n this year: but his intervention to crush Sextus has been ascribed by T a r n
to a Syrian governorship, and a Syrian proconsul was the obvious ally to a distressed
governor o f Asia. O n the present coin Asinius's name is i n the Genitive Case, and
without a preposition. I t is noteworthy that the only other known appearance o f a
Roman official's name i n like circumstances (that o f Atratinus at Entella) is to be dated
only a single year earlier than the date here proposed. Moreover, that occurred i n
special circumstances: he was exerting pressure to extort an indemnity from the city
whose name appears beside his. I t is therefore important to note that extortions o f a
precisely similar character can be discovered i n the history o f North-Western Asia
Minor in this very period 35-34. Early i n 35 Sex. Pompeius, escaping from Sicily,
17
endeavoured to secure a footing i n this region. .He occupied Lesbos, Nicaea, Nico-

1
GM. 153; M. Mys. 101; NC. 1935, p. 199; people the Marrucini vide Syme, RR. pp. 169, 193
KM. n. 6.
2
BMC. I.e. 3 St. R. n3, p. 648. 9 XII, 1; cf. Klebs, PW. 11, 1583 (2). P. 35. 1 0

4
Pastes des provinces asiatiques, p. 670. 17. 1 1
P. 12 (correcting Waddington).
5
Pliny, NH. xxxvii, 156; Pausanias VII, 2. 11; 12
RR. p. 266 n. 3.
cf. Jones, CERP. p p . 82, 399. '3 Jahreshefte des ost. arch. Inst. 1929, p. 72.
? E.g. Oxford, NC. l.c. *4 RR. I.e. 1 5
ILS. 891. 1 6
CAH. x, p. 77.
8 *> 45- 1229.
2
*7 Dio XLIX, 17. 4; Appian, BC. v, 133; cf.
For the relationship of the Asinii with their Broughton, ES. iv, p. 586.
396 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
media and Lampsacus (p. 246), and we are not told which o f the smaller cities i n the
1

Troad, Mysia and Bithynia fell with them. The governor o f Asia at this time was not
2 3
Plancus, as T a r n states, but C. Furnius: however, the proconsul o f Syria, M . Titius,
had to be called i n to defeat and execute Sextus. W e hear no more o f Furnius. His
failure may have caused his supersession, but there was i n any case no reason w h y he
should not leave i n 35. Antony had already applied grievous extortions to the Asian
4
cities, and the degradation o f the colony at Lampsacus bears witness to his severity on
this occasion also. His agent in this repression is likely to have been the successor to
Furnius. Thus the coincidence i n Case-usage o f the present coin w i t h the indemnity
issues signed by Atratinus and Sosius is unlikely to be fortuitous: Adramyttium falls
well within the triangle formed by the cities known to have been i n Sextus's hands, and
is very likely to have been among the towns which suffered for its voluntary or com-
pulsory allegiance to him. I t can, therefore, be maintained that the new governor o f
35-34 was Asinius Marrucinus, and that he used at Adramyttium precisely the methods
familiarised i n Sicily during the previous year. There they are illustrated by a special
numismatic Case-Usage which appears also on the present issue o f Adramyttium but
at no other date whatsoever.
Thus the peregrine coinage o f the late Republic yields five names o f Roman officials
without the addition o f their portraits. One, i n the Accusative, owes its presence to a
foundation, o f one the Case is uncertain, and the rest—in Nominative and Genitive—
are the product o f special circumstances caused by the disturbance and brutality o f the
period. There remains a category which, unlike such testimonies to the use of force
majeure, survived i n the principate o f Augustus.
(5) ET71 + Genitive. I t has been customary to consider this usage eponymous:5 but
the examples from the present period reveal that this view stands i n need o f correction.
The governors whose names appear i n this manner are the following:
(a) Proconsuls o f Bithynia-Pontus under Caesar and Octavian: C. Vibius Pansa
Caetronianus at Apamea, Nicaea and Nicomedia i n 47-46 B . C . (pp. 12,413), Thorius
6 7 8

Flaccus (sometimes with his portrait) at Nicaea and Nicomedia in 29-28 B . C . (pp. 383 f.).
(b) Proconsul ofAsiaunder A n t o n y : T . Octavius(?)at Alabanda in 34-31 B.c.(p.373).
0 10
(c) Legati o f Syria under Augustus: P. Quinctilius Varus, L . Volusius Saturninus
and Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus at Antioch in 7-3 B . C . , A . D . 4-5,
11 1 2
13

A . D . 12-15; the last also at Seleucia. *

14 1

1
Appian, Lc. 139; cf. Levi 11, p. 130; Hadas, 8
Paris, Rec. 1, p. 515.
Sextus Pompey, p. 155. 9
BMC. Syria, etc. p. 158. 57 ff.; Hu. 55.
2
CAH. x, p. 62. Cf. Raillard, p. 12.
3 1 0
BMC. l.c. p. 159. 60; cf. Hu. 63.
4 Cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 33, etc. 1 1
BMC. l.c. p. 159. 63 ff.
5 E.g. Mommsen, St. R. 11, 1, p. 261 n. 1; cf. 12
PIR. in, 118. 27.
Regling, WMK. p. 121. 1 3
Liebenam, Legaten, p. 368. 9.
6
BMC. p. 243; Rec. 1, p. 250. 1 4 2
PIR .11, 10. 64.
7
BMC. ibid.; Rec. 1, p. 398. '5 Wad. 7268.
 NAMES OF OFFICIALS O N T H E COINAGES 397
These usages bear witness, at the very least, to a general supremacy such as was
enjoyed by governors and implied by eponymy. I t is true that the use o f ETTI with a
1
name in the Genitive is, at a later date, merely eponymous and chronographical; but
its contexts i n this period suggest strongly that, contrary to the general view, they
imply, not only mere eponymy, but a practical control over the city-mint or some of its
mintages. Nor is this historically improbable, since some kind o f supervision o f local
finances is known to have been exercised as early as the Republic (p. 199), and various
degrees o f co-operation have already been noted. N o w the proconsuls o f Bithynia-
Pontus in group (a) inherit the formula w i t h ETTI from a predecessor, C. Papirius
Carbo (61-59 B . C . ) , whose name appears on the issues of eight cities. A . H . M . Jones 2 3

4
notes that the 'free' city o f Prusias ad Mare is not among these: he deduces from its
absence that such formulas establish a distinction o f some kind between subject and
'free' cities. But this view is invalidated by the appearance o f Em w i t h the names o f
6
Carbo 5 and a successor C. Caecilius Cornutus (56) at Amisus, which was free at the
7
time. Thus no simple constitutional distinction between the rights o f ' free* and subject
cities can be applied to these formulas. This negative conclusion is confirmed, from a
later date, by the 'freedom* o f the cities on whose coins the governors o f groups (b)
8
and (c) are represented. Yet there must be some distinction other than a purely
arbitrary one: some cities omit these formulas, others display them, on coins otherwise
uniform i n style and arrangement. Since ETTI does not differentiate 'free' from stipen-
diary cities, k- must indicate actual interference i n the administrative processes which
produced the coinages. Relevant to this supposition is the reputation o f Pansa
10
Caetronianus, the Perusian? nominee o f Caesar, as a prominent financier: other
great magnates of the period, Hirtius and Balbus, also issued aes coinage at profit to
themselves (pp. 3E, 19).
Confirmation is obtainable from group (c). T w o contemporary varieties of aes from
the mint of Antioch have already been discussed: one was official and the other
Archieratic (pp. 100, 376). I t is not therefore surprising to find yet another, the so-
called * pseudo-autonomous' class, consisting o f smaller coins on which the name o f the
legatus is often predominant. Nor is i t accidental that the first issue, w i t h ETTI OYAPOY,
coincides in date with the inauguration o f the larger denomination o f Archieratic
1
C{.Kuhner GrammatikdergriechischenSprache,
y p. 395) had respected the old-established freedom
sec. 438. 1; Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen of the city. When Caesar later freed it (Dio XLII, 48;
Griechisch, p. 134. 234 (8). Strabo, I.e.; cf. Jones, CERP. p. 426 n. 38), he was
2
Rec. 1, p. 213 n. 5. freeing it not from a subject status received in
3
CERP.p. KJO, Pompey's settlement, but from degradation re-
4
Strabo xn, 564. suiting from the forcible occupation of Pharnaces
6 Rec. 1, . 224; cf. p. 58.
p (Strabo, I.e.; cf. Adcock, CAH. ix, p. 677).
7 11 ** ^ " > C
> (43)'n z e r m 1 2 0 0 8
Henze, D Civitatibus Liberis, Diss. Berlin, e

PJF L u c u l l u s
( - - 9 - Hirschfeld, 1892, pp. 49 (Alabanda), 75 (Antioch and Seleucia).
P I u t L u c x : c f

^ 1, 1839; Broughton, ES. iv, p. 533) and 9 Syme, RR. p. 90.

P e y (Strabo xn, 547; f. Cary, CAH. ix,
om
Ibid. p. 95 n. 1.
c
1 0
398 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
1
bronze, and also w i t h the silver tetradrachms. But none o f these contemporary
2
groups need have proceeded from the same administrative source, since Malalas
specifically alludes to mints which included simultaneously active divisions under
separate authority. Even within the narrow bounds o f group (c), w i t h the names o f
legati, there are inscriptional vicissitudes that can hardly be meaningless: these extend
over a long period o f years, but i n the principate o f Augustus alone there are three
distinct phases. A t first, under P. Varus and L . Volusius Saturninus, the formula
introduced by ETTI follows the ethnic. Then, after a pause, coins o f very similar
appearance were struck i n A . D . 5 and 11, substituting for the governor's name the
3 4

title MHTPOnOAEGOI w i t h the monogram AYT(ov6uou).5 These issues present a

significant divergence from their predecessors. But afterwards a retrograde step was
taken. The name o f the legatus returns under Silanus, and appears also at another
6

7 8
'free' city, Seleucia; moreover, i t now precedes, instead o f following, the ethnic.
Only the monogram AYT(ovouov) is retained at Antioch i n consideration o f the civic
pride.9
10
There can be little doubt that these are nuances appreciates. W e have a series o f
11
fluctuations i n the respective authorities o f city and governor. Since Antioch did not
12
cease to be a libera civitas these variations can be i n no way connected w i t h a political
distinction between 'free* and stipendiary communities. As i n the case o f Amisus i t
seems necessary to infer that the point at issue is not theoretical but practical, namely the
actual relationship o f the governors to the local coining authorities. T o the vicissitudes
o f this the Antiochene issues bear eloquent witness.
Other evidence also can be adduced i n support o f the view that these formulas are
expressive, rather than a meaningless record o f eponymy. Under Augustus local
13 14
magistrates do not sign w i t h ETTI, w i t h the exception o f Eurycles at Sparta. I t is
impossible to resist the conclusion that his usage bears witness to the special con-

1
Wruck, Die Syrische Provin(ialpragung von adapted Archieratic issues (BMC. 161, etc.). A final
Augustus bis Trajan, no. 2. change takes place during an interregnum between
2
S.v. MovfJTa. legati in 59-60 (cf. Tac. Ann. xiv, 26): after its
3
Paris, etc.; cf. Macdonald, NC. 1904, p. no. omission on this occasion, the formula with ETTI
4
Ibid. p. H I . never again returns to the 'pseudo-autonomous'
5
Monograms 140-0. It cannot represent the small bronze, though it maintains for a few years its
ethnic ANT. (as Macdonald, l.c.) since it appears place on the larger pieces (cf. Macdonald, I.e.).
elsewhere in conjunction with ANTIOXECON 1 0
Dieudonn6, Milanges numismatiques, 2 sir.,
(BMC. 68). In any case it is difficult to decipher an p. 138.
11
N from it. For the contradictory character of this The 'victory' of the former under Nero is
description see pp. 100, 402. meaningless at so late a date but would have been
6
BMC. 150, etc. significant under Augustus.
7
Wad. 7268.
1 2
Cf. Jones, CERP. p. 263.
1 3
8
Cf. Macdonald, l.c. All apparent examples have been relegated to a
9 Later, under Tiberius, the governor's name is later date: see above, pp. 328 ff.
extended to the larger denomination, consisting of 1 4
- BMC. 62.
 NAMES OF OFFICIALS ON THE COINAGES 399
1
ditions of his semi-royal ETricrraaia. I t is clear, too, that later generations regarded
ETTI as significant: i t is interchangeable w i t h T7APA at Apamea,? and w i t h E F I I M
3
(sAriOevTOs) at Grimenothyrae; i t may sometimes even be an abbreviation for the
latter word. But particularly relevant is a group o f Cretan issues not later than the
Julio-Claudian period. These have the names o f governors, and o f a procurator or
Cretarch. The entirely indiscriminate appearance o f the Genitive and Dative cases after
E F I I , in recording these officials' names, indicates that the former usage, as well as the
4

latter, was held to imply a measure o f control.* I t was not merely eponymous and
chronographic, but bore witness to the financial supervision of the proconsul, who
6
was, indeed, as elsewhere, ultimately responsible for the KOIVOV. I n the same way, on
an issue of the KOIVOV 'ACTIOS (p. 377), the legend ETTI K A I I A P O I T O A E Y T E P O N
suggests that the issue was actually sanctioned by Augustus, not merely made i n his
presidency. T w o further considerations confirm that phrases w i t h ETTI have this
meaning. First, the legatus o f Tiberius i n Galatia, T . Helvius Basila, places his name
after ETTI on coinage which has no ethnic and is official (p. 328). Here the idea of control
clearly predominates over that o f eponymy, since no other source o f issue is recorded,
or can be assumed. Secondly, the elimination from the Augustan period o f the post-
humous coinages has left not a single example o f the name of a local dignitary with ETTI.
Yet every city had its eponymous magistrate, and i t is these who frequently appear
(p. 364); so that the governors, whose names alone are found w i t h ETTI, may be
supposed not to appear i n a merely eponymous capacity.
There are, therefore, various reasons for supposing that these formulas express the
secondary and ultimate source of issue. Thus i t is possible tentatively to compare ETTI
1
Cf. Kjellberg, Klio, XVII, 1921, p. 50, for the with the Genitive and the Latin Ablative of Time.
distinctive intention. For different views regarding His similar view with regard to signatures in the
Eurycles's regime, see above, p. 343 n. 18. plain Dative is, however, unsatisfactory. Imperial
2
Commodus, BMC. 97; cf. Wad. 5717. titulatures in Greek are regularly rendered in the
3
Trajan, Wad. 6057; cf. Senate, BMC. 223. Dative (e.g. of Augustus at Cydonia, Pergamum,
4
Augurinus: Genitive at Hierapytna (Vienna = Antioch, Smyrna, Mylasa, etc.), and such uses are,
Svoronos, Crete 50), Polyrhenium (Vienna = as in Latin, dedicatory: it is hard to consider
Svoronos, l.c. 53). Dative at Polyrhenium (BMC. KAIIAPI ZEBAZTCO fundamentally different from
23, Cambridge [McLean 7196]), Latus (NC. 1891. ANT10) r r P A T H r O ) (KM. p. 257. 25). In this
p. 28), Gortyna (BMC. 80, Athens = Svoronos, I.e. case too the simpler explanation is the more
193)- Lupus: Genitive at Polyrhenium (Paris = probable. ETTI with the Dative at all epochs carries
Svoronos, l.c. 52). Dative at Cydonia ( B M * a distinct connotation of control (cf. Kuhner,
Svoronos, I.e. no), Latus or Lappa (Copenhagen, Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, sec. 438, 11,
unpublished). Laches: Dative at Cydonia, Paris = 3 [&]): the laxity of contemporary usage (cf. Regard,
Svoronos, I.e. 109. The termination of Laches's Des prepositions dans la langue du Nouveau Testa-
name shows that the Datives are true ones, and ment, p. 429) does not in any way alter this fact,
not merely Cretan Genitives. since confusions only occurred between inflections
5
Muensterberg (MBNGW. ix, 1913, p. 161) be- of similar meaning.
lieves that the Dative usage with EFTI is due to a 6
Cf. in particular Strabo x, 483.
rerauickung of the normal eponymous Greek use
400 THE COMMUNITIES A N D THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
w i t h P E R M ( W J W ) . But there is an important distinction between the t w o : the p e r -
1

mission o f princeps or governor was necessary for any Roman city to issue coin
(p. 296), whereas the rarity o f the occurrence o f ET7I suggests that i t indicates super-
vision o f a stronger and more exceptional character. No doubt all the peregrine cities
2
needed a general permission to coin, but a few, even i n the so-called privileged c a t e -
gories, were occasionally obliged to submit to special supervision by the governor.
This supervision was expressed by the appearance o f his name on their coinage after
ETTI. This practice foreshadows the appointment of correctores and A o y i O T c d , and is a
very real encroachment on local libertas, comparable to, but distinct from, the several
grades o f * co-operation' described i n Part I (pp. 68, 390, etc.).
1
Cf. Dieudonne, Melanges numismatiques, 2 ser. 2
Cf. Bosch, KM. pp. 3 ff.
11, p. 137.
 LIBERTAS AND CIVITAS 401

C. LIBERTAS AND CIVITAS

1
Recent research, especially b y A . H . M . Jones and A . N . Sherwin-White,* has estab-
lished definitely that no fundamental distinction existed between 'free' and stipendiary
cities. The rights o f both depended on the unilateral declaration o f Rome, being
formulated i n special charters and i n the lex provinciae respectively. A l l cities had
independent constitutions; all were subject to frequent intervention. There were many
gradations o f privilege which depended not so much on status as on the circumstances
of transference to Rome (pp. 340 f., 346).
The coins confirm these conclusions. Civitates liberae, like the others, frequently
3
portray the living Augustus, and record the active interference o f their governors by
4
formulas with ETTI. Their mints are commonly requisitioned for official issues;* often
6
too they do not coin at all. Conversely, the stipendiary towns are under no obliga-
7
tion to refer on their coinage to the princeps or any Roman official or institution; they
produce foundation-issues and festival-issues as freely as the 'free'. Both classes alike
8
contribute to the Imperial small-change system. But just as the Roman municipia, i n
contrast to the colonies, occasionally give numismatic emphasis to their original
independence (p. 325), so i t is not surprising that a few civitates liberae record additional
honours and privileges. O n the whole, no doubt, they guarded their traditions more
jealously than the stipendiary communities. The Romans connived at this by pre-
0
ferring the method o f auctoritas for their government. Thus the 'autonomous'
10 11
currencies of * free' Athens and Chios, for example, are, on the whole, more notice-
1
Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939), pp. 103 ff.; Apollonia in Ulyricum, Cephallenia, Aenus, Lappa,
GC. i n , pp. iiyff. Mopsus, Cercina, Massilia.
Pp. 151 ff. Cf. also (among a large literature)
1 7
E.g. at this period Bargasa (Paris), Thyatira
Henze, De Civitatibus Liberis, Diss. Berlin, 1892; (Paris), Samosata (BMC 1ff.),Rhosus (Brussels =
Horn, Foederati, Diss. Frankfurt, 1930; Heuss, M. V. 269. 836), Botrys (American College at
Klio Beitr. x x x i , 1933, pp. 78 f.; Zmigryder- Beyrouth = Rouvier, JIAN. xi, 1908, p. 9),
Konopka, Studi italiani di filologia classica, X i v , Marathus (Rouvier, JIAN. iv, 1901, p. 146). Tyre
I
937> pp. 93 ff.; Taubler, Imperium Romanum; does not stop her autonomous issues (JIAN. vi,
Kloesel, Libertas, Diss. Breslau, 1935. 1903, 2089 ff.) when * enslaved' in c. 20 B.C. (Dio
3
E.g. Abydus, Alabanda, Aphrodisias, Cos, LIV, 7. 6). Cf., probably a little later, Alia (Paris),
Ilium, Mylasa, Aegeae, Antioch, Ascalon, Gaza, Briula (Wad. 4929), Bagae (Wad. 4883) and
. Amisus, Cydonia, Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Nico- Hyrcanis (BMC. 1).
P<>lis, Tanagra, Leptis minor, Sabrata, Oea, Leptis 8
E.g. 'free' Chios, Rhodes, Antioch, Sidon,
Magna, Lycian and Thessalian Leagues. Ascalon, Athens, Amphipolis, Thessalonica, Nico-
4
Antioch, Seleucia; cf. Amisus under Caesar and polis, Thessaly; stipendiary Ephesus, Smyrna,
Alabanda under Antony. Philadelphia, Aradus.
5
Antioch, Cephallenia(?); cf. Panormus early in 9 Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 236 ff.
£st century B . C , Amisus and Thessalonica under 1 0
The discovery by Mrs Shear (Hesperia, 1936,
ae&ar, Zacynthus under Antony (for its freedom, pp. 285 ff.) of coins reading I E B A I T O I cannot be
6 F ' - H>A > ' > P- 447).
U P L a r s e n E S IV accepted. E. S. G. Robinson confirms this.
Ma A P > Caunus, Cnidus, Prusias ad
A s t y a l a e a 1 1
One of these does read lEBAITOZ (Mavro-
Aegma, Amphissa, Thespiae, Samothrace, gordato, NC. 1917, p. 225).
402 THE COMMUNITIES AND THE ROMAN OFFICIALS
able than those o f stipendiary Bargasa and Thyatira. Thus, too, a few 'free* communi-
1
ties are allowed to retain their mints for silver: but this cannot be exalted into a general
2
distinction, since they are so infrequent, and silver is also minted at stipendiary
3
Laodicea ad Mare. Free cities are not required to portray amici principis or other
4
governors under Augustus. These minor dignities were i n harmony with the Roman
desire to maintain existing systems o f government.*
6
luuuaxoi had been levelled down to £Aeu0epoi, and eAevOepoi to OOTOVOUOI.7
8
To auTovouoi even the stipendiary had been elevated: they, as well as the 'free',
could now be called sociif I n one sense, therefore, they possessed libertas no less
than other classes o f community. This was an ancient catchword which had been
associated w i t h the most anomalous imperialisms and annexations. I t had never meant
independence: i t postulated mens bona, pudor, modus, fides, lex (p. 324). Last aptly
10

points out that the Greeks honestly thought that Rome had destroyed sAeuBepia, but
the Romans honestly thought that i t preserved libertas™—the reward o f the obedient
12 13
{qui maiestatem nostram comiter conservare. debent ). Cicero echoes Epictetus' defini-
tion 'EAeuOspos soriv 6 360V d>s pouAeroa, but sophistically adds that this involves a
14

1
rigid obedience to the laws, since the people have created them. * The Empire was
based on ubiquitous/z&rtar, and so, as Proculus explicitly states (p. 318), on ubiquitous
16

clientela o f Rome and the princeps—that is, on ubiquitous auctoritas principis. Even
Caesar, who did not make auctoritas the basis o f his government, united i n his propa-
1
Lycian League (in general, Berlin = M. S. VII, describe itself on its coins as SAeuOlpa (Oresch-
1. 1 with portrait, BMC. 1-4 * autonomous'; nikov, Numiimaticheskago Svornika, in, 1914, p. 44).
Cragus, BMC 25, Wad. 3058; Massicytes, many Cf. the decay of peculiar features of £AeO0spoi:
varieties, BMC. 35 ff., Wad. 3108 ff., etc.; Tlos, postliminium (Heuss, Klio, xxxi, 1933, pp. 10 f. n. 1),
BM, Wad. 3195 f.), Stratonicea (KM. p. 155, GM. asylum (Barth, De Graecorum Asylis, Diss. Strass-
449: BMC. 33 and GM. 449 A are posthumous), burg, 1888, pp. 5 f.) and ius exilii (Hartmann, De
Sidon (p. 345). The status of Tabae (GM. 456: Exilio apudRomanos, Diss. Berlin, 1887, p. 24). The
KM. 1 is probably posthumous) is uncertain (vide distinction of Mommsen (St.R. in, pp. 725 f.) is
Broughton, ES. iv, pp. 706 f.). See also p. 340. obsolete.
2
Cf. Mommsen, M%w. p. 331. But his alternative 8
Cf. Cic. Att. vi, 1. 15, Graeci vero exsultant
suggestion that this was a Metropolenrecht is rightly quod peregrinis iudicibus utuntur...se ocCrrovoiiiccv
refuted by Bosch, KM. pp. 3 ff. BMC. 30.
3
adeptos putant.
4
But under Antony Sparta portrayed Atratinus 9
Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 159, 162.
(p. 382). 1 0
Cf. Jones, Anatolian Studies to Buckler,
5 Cf. Jones, GC. p. 52. pp. 103 ff. 1 1
CAH. xi, p. 436.
6
For the unimportance of foederati at this time, 1 2
Proculus, Dig. X L I X , 15. 7.
vide Sherwin-White, p. 149; Stevenson, RPA. 13
De Officiis, 1,70; cf. De Republica, 11,43; Syme,
p. 164. RR. p. 320.
7 For their identification vide Appian, BC. 1,102, 1 4
Diss, iv, 1. 1; cf. Zmigryder-Konopka, Studi
ccCrrovoiiof T£ KOH 960COV coreAeis = liberae et immunes; italiani difilologia classica, Xiv, 1937, p. 91 n. I .
cf. Josephus, AJ. x v n , 9. 4; BJ. 11, 2. 3; Strabo x n , *5 Cf. Tellenbach, Forschungen %ur Kirchen- und
545, aCrrovoprjOetaa 6e TTOAUV X P O V O V
°V8£ 81a Geistesgeschichte, vn, 1936, p. 15.
TeAous ecpuAa^e Tnv SAevOepfav. Thus Chersonesus, 1 6
Cf. Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den
although attached to the Bosphoran kingdom ostlichen Provinym, p. 146; Kornemann, QAS. IV,
(Strabo v n , 309), can now without inconsistency p. 14; id, PW. Suppl. I , p. 302.
 LIBERTAS A N D CIVITAS 403
1
ganda the slogans o f clientela and libertas. By the assistance o f the KTicrrris conception
familiarised b y the coinage, he, like Pompey, was able to boast o f his peregrine
patrocinia (p. 317). But i t remained for Augustus to base his Empire on the institution.
It is not surprising that his Res Gestae is schematically divided into two sections—
comprehending auctoritas and libertas respectively (p. 324). The two were indissolubly
linked (p. 443); libertas was very soon to become the keynote o f official propaganda,
universalised b y the epithets Publico} and Augusta}
There was, therefore, not much difference between the libertas of'free* and stipen-
diary cities o f peregrine rank. But there was, owing to Augustus's pro-Italian men-
tality, a fundamental distinction between peregrine and citizen libertas. I t is not for
nothing that Hippo Diarrhytus and Bilbilis adorn their coinages w i t h L I B E R A and
I T A L I C A respectively (pp. 224, 170): these are the most distinctive descriptions o f
their civitas which they can find. I t is significant that only the enfranchised com-
munities were permitted the symbol o f Liber Pater (p. 315). Further clues are provided
by the small settlements o f Romans who resided, without the rank o f a city and without
geographical separation, i n the midst o f a non-Roman community (p. 186). They were 4

highly organised,* granted official land-allotments (p. 383)/ and favoured i n every
7
possible way. Their privileged position, o f which much evidence is extant, is best
8
exemplified by inscriptions at Attaleia, Isaura,? etc., where they appear i n decrees, by
c 10
the side o f the peregrine community, as oi cTvuTroAmvouEvoi Pcouccioi. Particularly
11
arresting is an inscription i n which they actually precede oi Kujikflvoi, and another i n
1
Patron oi foederatv. BG. 1, 31. 6, vi, 12. 2; cf. 6
Cf. Broughton, TAP A. LXVI, 1935, pp. 18 ff.
Horn, Foederati, Diss. Frankfurt, 1930, p. 57. Cf. especially Kornemann, l.c. p. 23; Hahn,/fom
7

Libertas of'protected' states: BC. 1, 9. 5,1, 22. 5; und Romanismus, p. 94; Volkmann, Miinchener
cf. Weickert, Klio, 1937, p. 247. Cf. Livy's phrase, Beitrage iur Papyrusforschung, xxi, 1935, p. 205
of an earlier date, patrocinium libertatis Graecorum n. 5; Box, JRS. xxi, 1931, p. 203 n. 2; Riccobono,
(xxxiv, 58. I I ; cf. Skard, Festskrift tilKoht, p. 65). Annali del Seminario giuridico della R. Univ. di
2
From Galba (BMC. 68 ff.). Palermo, xv, 1936, p. 413 n. 2. The recent deduction
3
From Claudius (BMC. 145 ff.). Cf. Kloesel, l.c. from the Rhosus edicts by de Visscher (Comptes-
p. 70 n. 29; Schoner, Acta Seminarii Philologici Erlan- rendus de VAcadimie des Inscriptions, 1938, pp. 24 ff.),
gensis, 11,1881, p. 485; Charlesworth, The Virtues of that they were even allowed to hold local citizenship
a Roman Emperor, p. 12; Alfoldi, ZfN. X L , 1930, p. 6. as well, is doubted by Levi, Rivista difilologia, 1938,
4
Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 211, who compares the pp. 126 f. n. 1.
Roman core of the Latin city. These settlements 8
Viale, Atti delprimo Congresso di Studi Romani,
were civil conventus or pagi (cf. BCH. x, 1886, I , p. 362, misinterprets this as a real colony; the
p. 422 n. 87; Broughton, pp. 32, 210; id. ES. iv, evidence provided by Kornemann, l.c. pp. n ff.,
pp. 546ff.;Last, CAH. xi, p. 444; Haywood, ES. iv, shows that this is not correct; cf. Broughton, ES.
Pp. 103ff.;Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 580 n. 60) or semi- iv, 1938, p. 703.
military castella (Rostovtzeff, I.e.; Jones, GC. p. 64). 9 IGRR. 111, 292, 294; cf. Kornemann, l.c. p. 45;
5
With patroni (CIL. i n , 455 n. 48), curatores pace Viale, l.c. p. 363; Paribeni, Augustus, p. 413.
(CIG. 2930; CIL. v, 5747), even decuriones (Eph. 1 0
Cf. also Ephemeris epigraphica, v, p. 155 n. 57;
I f * ! > P- 425 n. 5). Cf. Kornemann, Berliner
1 VII
Papers of American School of Classical Studies at
Studienfiir classische Philologie undArchaologie,Xlv, Athens, 1, 1882-3, p. 55, no. 28.
1892passim; Hatzfeld, pp. 257 ff. 1 1
Kornemann, l.c. p. 47.
404 T H ECOMMUNITIES A N D T H ER O M A N OFFICIALS
1
which they not only precede the natives o f Masculula, but appear i n heavier type.
2
Unless they were aboriginal libera, they were not subject to local l a w ; and the trala-
3
tician provincial edicts were still expressly designed for their protection. Ubique vicit
5
Romanus habitat*—and ample provision was made for his habitation.
I t followed easily that such groups should be granted the colonial or municipal status
6
to which their organisation and land-ownership had pointed. Then they became a geo-
graphically separate organism, and, except i n the rare cases when all the peregrini were
expropriated (p. 305ml. 10,11) or admitted to the franchise, we havea double community.
7 8

The conclusion o f Jones that, i n accordance with Augustus's general policy, the natives
0
were now placed i n a state o f subordination to the Roman minority —whose boundaries
10
were carved w i t h the greatest lavishness —is confirmed by the coinage. N o peregrine
mint survived the establishment o f a colony. A t a single municipium, Emporiae, there
may have been a brief interlude o f peregrine and municipal coinage at the same mint
(p. 347); then the natives gave up the unequal struggle. I t was even a promotion for
11
civitates foederatae to achieve Latinitas, and they are, by comparison, justifiably
12
described as OuoTaCTcrouevoi.
There existed, i n fact, a completely one-sided policy o f exaltation o f Roman citizens
over even the most privileged peregrini. I t is not therefore surprising that patriotism
13
of peregrini to Rome had scarcely awakened at this p e r i o d : that sharp local conflicts
14 15
ensued, that the government had to intervene to check the citizens' arrogance, and
16
that the condition o f rural areas was particularly miserable. The Hellenistic sovereigns
1
ILS. 6774; cf. Sherwin-White, p. 212. l.c. p. 213; Gsell v, p. 132 n. 7; pace Kornemann,
2
Sherwin-White, p. 213: cf. de Visscher, l.c. PW. xvi, 598); not Actium (cf. Jones, GC. p. 312
1939, pp. 113 ff., who shows (p. 119) that even the n. 80; Hierocles 651. 7; pace Kornemann [coloniae]
liberti escaped many responsibilities. 109; Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den ost-
3
Buckland, Revue historique du droit francais et lichen Provin^en, p. 147 n. 2), Isaura, or Attaleia
etranger, iv ser., xm, 1934, p. 91. (p. 383 n. 10). Sometimes two Roman communities
4
Seneca, Ad Helviam, vii, 7. are so joined (e.g. Frontinus, De Controversiis
5 Such facts are unduly minimised by Mommsen, Agrorum [Feldm. p. 53, 1. 1]; Jullian, TP. p. 30;
Ephemeris epigraphica, vii, p. 441 n. 1. Syme, CQ. 1938, p. 43). 9
GC. p. 173.
6
Cf. Sherwin-White, pp. 171 f., 212. 1 0
Frontinus, l.c. (pp. 118 f.), Agennius Urbicus
7
For the unusualness of this, vide Jullian, TP. (ibid. 11. 27 ff.), Hyginus, De Limitibus Consti-
p. 30 n. 7; Jones, GC. p. 173; cf. Strabo xn, 546. tuendis (ibid. p. 113, n . 22 f.). But they too were
8
Proof of this natural phenomenon is forth- discontented (p. 305).
coming at individual communities, e.g. Thuburbo 1 1
Cf. McElderry, JRS. vm, 1918, p. 70; Hardy,
Maius (Merlin, Cinquieme Congres international Roman Laws and Charters, p. 64; Horn, Foederatt,
d'archeologie [1930], pp. 208ff.; Poinssot, Comptes- p. 52; Stevenson, RPA. p. 163.
rendus de VAcadimie des Inscriptions, 1915, pp. 328f.; 1 2
Ed. Cyr. 3 (SEG. IX, 1938, p. 14).
Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 580 n. 59), Thysdrus (Gsell 1 3
Cf. Sherwin-White, p. 205. Ibid. p. 213.
1 4

vm, pp. 181 f.; Merlin, l.c. p. 210), Carthage 1 5

Cf. de Visscher, Comptes-rendus de VAc. des
(Haywood, ES. iv, p. 103; Barthel,. Zur Geschichte Inscriptions, 1939, p. 119.
der romischen Stadten in Africa, p. 17; Broughton, 1 6
Cf. Heitland, Last words on the Roman mum-
p. 53; Sherwin-White, p. 172), Pisidian colonies cipalities, p. 23. Vide also Rostovtzeff, Milanges
(Kornemann, l.c. p. 45), perhaps Volubilis (Merlin, Pirenne, p. 430.
 LIBERTAS A N D CIVITAS 405
1
had provided a precedent by their favour to their own compatriots, and Rome followed
2 3
their lead wholeheartedly. The Lex Iulia de maiestate, probably adapted by Octavian,
was ready for dissenters. The sentiments o f the princeps were peculiarly suited for the
intensification o f such a policy. But even Caesar s watchword at Pharsalus had been
parce civibus.* I n one sense, libertas was indeed now universal; but i n this period too
Pliny the younger could have spoken o f residuum libertatis nomenJ T o gain potency i t
6
needed the addition o f civitas. A t the bottom o f the scale, i n this concordia discors o f
libertas? were the rural populations, over which even the peregrine communities
8
lorded i t : at the top were the ubiquitous cives Romani. (Yet even on civitas, as has
been shown, a great many obligations were imposed by the central government, which
claimed the paramount rights o f the Roman res publica over municipal allegiances and
over the individual res privataf) I t is often suspected that the periodical exertions o f
10
paternalistic administrations were not enough to invalidate the conclusion o f Heitland
and Reinhold: 'Judged by . . . the greatest good o f the greatest number, the Augustan
11
reconstruction must be found wanting'. The new libertas—which was good for
12
nothing but futile expenditure o f civic income —was responsible for the decline from
13
the healthy municipal pride o f Cicero to the sneering abuse o f Kleinstadterei by
14 1
Martial and Juvenal. * I t is linked i n the strongest way to the regime o f Augustus: its
16
compatibility w i t h monarchy depended on the degree o f the ruler's auctoritas. The
fourth Part o f this book w i l l discuss the evolution o f this characteristic as the basis o f
government, i n substitution for the franker, but no more decisive, imperium.

1
Cf. Rostovtzeff, CAH. vn, p. 164; Jones, GC (h.-fil.), 1931, 2; for the Republican conception,
p. 161. But vide Westermann, Actes du Ve Congres vide Strasburger, Concordia Ordinum, Diss. Frank-
int. de Papyrologie, 1937, p. 566, for interpretation furt, 1929.
of this as plutocratic rather than racial. Cf. Rostovtzeff, Melanges Pirenne, p. 430;
8

It is very doubtful whether, as suggested by

2
Cary, History, xxii, 1938, p. 60.
Schonbauer, Sav. Z. 1929, p. 398, cf. Haarhoff, The Cf. Kloesel, Libertas, Diss. Breslau, 1935,
9

Stranger at the Gate, p. 257, the Greeks were treated pp. 18, 25; Burck, Auf dem Wege ium national-
much better than other peregrini: vide de Visscher, politischen Gymnasium, vi, 1938, pp. 54 ff. The
I.e. p. 115; von Premerstein, Sav. Z. 1931, p. 436. 'totalitarian' aspects of the government have also
3
Cf. Ciaceri, Studi storiciper VAntichitd classica, been discussed by Stark, Respublica, Diss. Gottingen,
n, 1909, p. 380 n. 1, in, 1910, p. 2 (Octavianic); 1937 and Biondi, Annuario della R. Univ. di Catania,
pace Arangio-Ruiz, Augustus, p. 137 (Caesarian). 1928-9, p. 19. Cf. above, pp. 317E
Vide also Last, JRS. xxvm, 1938, p. 213. 1 0
Repetita, pp. 5 ff.
4
Suet. Caes. 75. 2; cf. Syme, RR. p. 159. 1 1
CJ. 1938, p. 369.
Attributed by Orosius, vi, 15. 26, to Pompey. 1 2
Jones, GC. pp. 135 f., 243 f.
Ep. vm, 24; cf. Koehne, Description du musee
5
De Legibus, 11, 2. 5; De Rep. 1, 26; Pro Sulla,
1 3

defeu le Prince Kotschoubey, p. 171. 7. 23, 8. 24; Pro Plancio, 6. 9; cf. Sherwin-White,
The conclusion also of Riccobono, Annali del p. 14.
Seminario giuridko della R. Univ. di Palermo, XV, 1 4
4. 66, etc.; cf. Jullian, TP. p. 35.
J
93 > p. 453; Sutherland, RIS. p. 186.
6
1 3
3- 34, 4- 43, -
I O I 0
°-4-
Forr the
the new Concordia, vide Skzrd, Avhandlinger 1 6
Cf. Tellenbach, Forschungen iur Kirchen- und
e t
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II Geistesgeschichte, VII, 1936, p. 16.
 4°7

Part IV

IMPERIUM AND AUCTORITAS

INTRODUCTION

N
U M E R O U S coins have been shown to allude to contemporary constitu-
tional problems. I n the present Part, these are reviewed, and related to
other ancient material and modern theories. The coins provide evidence
which seems to justify and necessitate several divergencies from current
views. O f late years, chiefly owing to the impetus given by the Cambridge Ancient
History, research on the Augustan constitution has continued with redoubled vigour.
All but the numismatic material has been employed frequently and exhaustively—often
to produce directly opposed results. The present study does not aim at yet another
survey of this vast and inconclusive bulk o f literary and epigraphic evidence. Con-
sideration w i l l rather be given to such parts o f i t as are relevant to the neglected coins
and to the problems which they illuminate; and an attempt w i l l be made to check by
these numismatic contributions the latest theories which the rapid development o f the
subject has yielded. O w i n g to the large number o f these and their voluminous
character, recapitulations o f them, and indeed all references, must be o f the briefest.
An attempt has rather been made to reconstruct the constitutional edifice with care
that, for once, the coins shall play their fair share as bricks.
408

Chapter 1
R U L E BY IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
H E two decades which are here discussed were a period i n which the Roman

T constitution was modified i n favour o f a military autocracy. This Chapter is

concerned with the two predominant features o f this regime, the new title o f
Imperator and the imperium maius. I t w i l l be shown that, throughout the period, the
former continued to be the deliberate expression, and the latter the legal basis, o f the
successive governments. This is important to the principal argument, which will
maintain that both these phenomena disappeared i n 27 B.C., and did not return under
Augustus: so far from being earlier adumbrations o f the principate, they are directly
Opposed to its theory and practice. O w i n g to their existence, the years 49-28—the
subject o f this Chapter—were an isolated period o f constitutional experiment, from
which the principate was developed only by reaction, not i n continuity.

A . T H E R E V O L U T I O N A R Y T I T L E O F IMPERATOR: EARLIEST
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

The origins o f the new title o f supremacy have been buried under a vast controversy.
The failure o f this to achieve a solution is hardly surprising i n view o f the disastrous
lack o f official, contemporary documentation. I t has at least, w i t h reason, been gener-
1
ally believed that the later statements o f D i o and Suetonius* concerning Caesar's tide
have a germ o f truth i n them: the dictator must have used the appellation i n a peculiar
3 4
and unconstitutional way. McFayden, however, has rightly realised that the literary
and epigraphic evidence is entirely inconclusive.
The coinages discussed i n this book bring to bear upon this problem official
documents o f an earlier date than any usually quoted. First come the following
legends on coins o f the two Pompeian leaders:*
(1) C N . M A G N V S I M P . and I M P . F. (46 B . C . ) .
(2) M A G N V S PIVS I M P . and I M P . F. (c. 45).
(3) I M P . SEX. M A G N V S (44).
1
44. 2-5.
XLHi, * Caes. 76. 13, xxx, 1938, pp. 349 f.; Andersen, Neue Deutsche
3
E.g. most recendy Radin, Studi Riccobono, 11, Forschungen, cxcvi, 1938, p. 34. De Sanctis, Studt
pp. 21 fF.; de Labriolle, Revue des etudes latines, Riccobono, 11, pp. 57 ff. shows that this may, to some
1933, p. 263; Carcopino, Histoire romaine, 11, extent, have been true of Sulla; cf. Momigliano,
pp. 1000 f.; von Premerstein, pp. 235 ff.; Kahrstedt, Augustus (1938), p. 197.
GGA. 1938, p. 21; Gage, Revue historique, 1936, 4
Pp. 11, 28 ff.
p. 339; Volkmann, Forschungen und Fortschritte, 5
See above, p. 22.
 THE REVOLUTIONARY TITLE O F IMPERATOR 409
These illuminate somewhat the early history o f the title. I t has been shown that, by
the analogy o f R E G V L V S F. etc., the correct interpretation o f (1) and (2) should be
\U?(erator) F(ilius). Cn. Magnus, Imperator filius, is quite different from Cn. Magnus
1
filius, imperator: the sons o f Pompey must, retrospectively, have been considering
2
their father as Imperator i n some special and inheritable sense. N o attempt must be
made to apply this significance to the lifetime o f Pompey himself, since that would risk
an anachronism: but tendencious reinterpretations o f dead personages are frequent
3
in this period. The coins show distinctly that a title far removed from the traditional
cognomen o f salutations had found its way into political thought as early as 46. This is
confirmed by the strange appellation o f the Pompeian headquarters i n South Spain:
4
Vrbs Imperatoria Salacia. I M P . F. alternatives w i t h I M P . ; and Magnus Imp., where
the title does not refer specifically to salutation, is only at a short remove from Imp.
Magnus.$ (3) indicates i n a decisive manner that this transition was accepted i n the
Pompeian camp before the end o f 44. I t is not an accident that this coin also breaks
with precedent by the substitution o f Sextus's own head for that of his father: its use o f
6
Imperator recalls that the only title borne as a prefix during the Republic was Rex.
Nor is it a chance coincidence that this coinage was made during a brief period o f
reconciliation with the senate late i n 44.? Sextus was profiting by t h ^ death o f the
dictator, and by his agreement w i t h the Roman authorities, to claim for himself
Caesar's position.
The retention o f SEX. i n his titulature indicates that the adoption o f Imperator as a
8
personal praenomen had not been considered after March 44, ,any more than before i t .
Yet its use by Sextus, as a prefix, at least implies a similar use by the dictator, or an
informal one by his supporters. These conclusions accord with the often maligned and
rejected? statement o f Suetonius that Julius received the praenomen Imperatoris, cogno-
10
men patrispatriae. The latter o f these phrases shows that only 'prefix' a n d ' suffix' are
meant," and supplies no evidence for the view that the tide was a proper name, rather
12
than a definition o f competence. Sextus's emphasis on Imperator does not suit
13
Kahrstedt's suggestion that, since this title was only granted him b y the senate as a
deliberate substitute for his real desire, the name o f rex, Caesar neglected i t . O n the
14
other hand, Radin's reasons for believing rex to be etymologically the less autocratic

1
In the present Chapters the word in this new 7
Cf. Ulrich, Pietas (pius) als politischer Begriff,
sense is spelt with a capital letter. Diss. Breslau, 1930, p. 12.
Cf. recent interpretation of a denarius by Cf. von Premerstein, p. 246, cf.n. 6; McFayden,
8

A-iegle, Transactions of International Numismatic pp. iof.; pace Mommsen, St. R. n , p. 767.
3

Congress of i 6, p. 212.
93 9 As by Mommsen, l.c.
3
Cf. below, p. 418. For Pompey himself see Caes. 76.
1 0

PP- 4i 1 ff., 438 .

n » Cf. McFayden, p. 13 n. 25.
s ^ ^ove, p. 23 n. 1. " See below, p. 415.
6 Cf. Carcopino, Histoire romaine, 11, p. 1001.. GGA. 1938, p. 21.
1 3

Cf. McFayden, p. 3 n. 12. Studi Riccobono, 11, pp. 24, 28.

1 4
410 R U L E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B . C .
1
o f the two titles are equally tenuous; the royal implications o f Imperator arose, not
from antiquarianism, but from the authoritarian conduct o f those who bore i t during
the present period. Our three first coins have demonstrated that two transitions at
least, from title o f salutation to title o f competence, and from title o f competence to
prefix, were accepted even at the Republican headquarters before the end o f 44.
1
Cf. de Labriolle, Revue des itudes latines, 1933, Rudolph, Neue Jahrbucher fur Antike und deutsche
p. 263. Alternative origins for the word are sug- Bildung, 1, 1939, p. 145; vide also Sherwin-White,
gested by Basanoff, Rev. arch, x, 1937, pp. 43 ff; pp. 121 f.
 THE IMPERIUM MAIUS 411

B. T H E IMPERIUM MAIUS ON WHICH THE T I T L E OF

IMPERATOR WAS BASED

It is now necessary to define the implications o f the novel title o f competence to which
these coinages have borne witness.
In the first place, the literary authorities confirm the numismatic evidence to the
effect that the curious convention by which holders o f imperium could only bear the
1
title imperator after salutation was relaxed i n the last years o f the Republic, when i t
2
was abundantly clear that the old order had gone. The title now came to be the appel-
4
lation o f commanders w i t h imperium? as even D i o at a much later date realised.
Sulla had already been characterised vaguely and informally as * the* Imperator f> and a
6
municipality described Pompey i n the same w a y at a time when his last salutation title
had been obliterated from his style by a triumph.7 Thus Cicero can now say, i n general
terms: universuspopulus Romanus. .unum sibiad.. .bellum Cn. Pompeium Imperatorem
depoposcit? The Table o f Heraclea likewise uses the word as the equivalent o f * com-
10
mander \? The dying Scipio's mot was Imperator bene se habet and Labienus even
inscribes on his coins the shocking title Parthicus Imperator—the Parthian Marshal."
Significant too is Cicero's sneer at the grandiose new title illustrated b y the coins, when
he thanks the dictator for allowing him a salutation cum ipse Imperator in toto imperio
12
populi Romani unus esset. I n none o f these instances has the title any connection w i t h
salutation by the troops: i n all of them i t refers to high commands, and to the imperium
by which they were undertaken. I n the last passage Cicero permits himself a jeu de
1
mots on the two conceptions, now allied, o f the imperium populi Romani * and the
imperium Caesaris. I n Rome, the new use o f Imperator may still have been o f an
unofficial character, as its neglect by Caesar's o w n coins suggests. But at the Pompeian
headquarters the de facto arrogations o f the dictator were applied openly to his deceased
rival, and published on the coinage o f that rival's sons.
1
Cf. Nesselhauf, Klio, 1937, p. 315; McFayden, 5 de Sanctis, Studi Riccobono, 11, p. 60.
p. 2; Appian, BC. 11, 44. 6
ILS. 877 (Auximum dedication). F. E. Adcock
2
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 8. has pointed out to me the dangers of utilising
3
Cf. Levi, Rivista di Jilologia, 1932, p. 207; this for more exact constitutional deductions. Cf.
Strack, Aufdem Wege ium nationalpolitischen Gym- also Hammond, p. 225 n. 8. The usage of this earlier
nasium, vi, 1938, p. 10 n. 12. period needs a thorough reconsideration.
4
This is the point of his distinction in X L I I I , 44. 7 McFayden, p. 5 n. 17.
*» as seen by McFayden, p. 8, cf. n. 6. Zmigryder- 8
De Imperio Cn. Pompei, 15. 44.
Konopka,
8 Vllh Congr. int. des sciences historiques, 9 1, 121. 1 0
Val. Max. in, 2. 13.
J5f' *' ^ 2 4 >
Pm t e r
definition in L I I , 41. 3
r e t s a
" BMCR. 11, p. 500.131; cf. Tarn, CAH. x, p. 47.
vrrjv T6 KO&TOS 6iacT|uoc{vovoxxv) in the same way: " Pro Ligarby 3.
out it is more probable that Dio is there referring 1 3
For this vide Levi, Rivista di fiblogia, 1932,
o the Herrscheramt (cf. von Premerstein, p. 260) as p. 207; von Premerstein, p. 127; Sherwin-White,
h
e knew it. p. 156 n. 4.
412 R U L E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
So the title Imperator, i n its new sense, meant, i n the realistic years o f the late
Republic, what i t said. Irrespective o f salutations, i t signified the Commander, that is,
1
the holder o f a particularly important imperium. Used as a suffix, then, i t bore the
2
connotation o f ' a' war-lord, and, as a prefix, o f ' the' War-lord. These were new ideas.
But the Republican imperium was a familiar and finite conception which did not
warrant such novelties: the title could not have been derived from ordinary proconsular
or consular imperia. I t is, therefore, necessary to ask what change the imperium
underwent i n the 'forties to create the new use o f Imperator.
I t is not difficult to find the answer. Caesar's dictatorial imperium which began i n
49 B.C. was an imperium maius. This had not been the case w i t h the informal conspiratio
3
which has invited false comparisons b y its posthumous title 'First Triumvirate'.
Again, when Pompey had governed an unusually large provincia by his legatif i t had
indeed been a step forward, and perhaps even an 'anomalous and arbitrary' one;5
6
but, after due allowance for Caesar's propaganda, i t was not actually unconstitutional,
since provinciae o f any size could be voted.? Although i t was clear enough that the
8
Republic was breaking down, Pompey did not claim to represent the entire Roman
State.* A n imperium maius, however, was o f a new quality, since i t controlled the
10
provinciae o f others, and subordinated imperia to an imperium. This was certainly the
character o f Caesar's imperium, by which—cum ipse Imperator in tow imperio populi
11
Romani unus esset —he could nevertheless permit men like Cicero and Q . Fabius
12
Maximus to triumph, since their imperium was not abolished b y his, but overridden.
Caesar inaugurated the new constitutional era o f 8wacrre!ai b y concentrating i n
13

14
himself the ultimate responsibilities o f the whole government. (The same principle is
illustrated by coinages. M . Acilius (?) in Macedonia, although a holder o f imperium, strikes
1
This evidence disposes of the view of Andersen, 8
Cf. Syme, l.c. p. 8.
Neue Deutsche Forschungen, cxcvi, 1938, p. 34, that 9 Id. RR. p. 190.
the title of the Herrscheramt—lacking rechtliche For a definition of imperium maius vide Cic.
1 0

Befugnisse—was already fully established before the Att. iv, 1. 7; cf. Mommsen, St. R. I , pp. 25 f.;
3

Ides of March. Such anachronisms as applied to the Lauria, Studi Bonfante, 11, pp. 488,491; de Francisci,
regimes of 49-28 are particularly misleading—as is Augustus (1938), p. 83.
the statement, true only of a later period, that the 1 1
See above, p. 411 n. 12.
title was unconnected with the imperium (cf. 1 2
Cf. Brassloff, PW. vi, 1791.
Momigliano, Augustus [1938], p. 197, etc., etc.). 1 3
Dio L I I , 1. 1; cf. Syme, RR. p. 324 n. 6. It
2
On this conception, cf. Syme, RR. p. 310. cannot be determined whether Tacitus (Arm. 111,28)
3
Cf. Sanders, Memoirs of the American Academy reckons the era of military anarchy—continue....
in Rome, x, 1932, p. 55. discordia, non mos non ius—from 52 or 49 B.C.; cf.
4
Cf. Hammond, p. 10. Syme, Papers of the British School at Rome, xiv
5 Syme, RR. p. 42. 6
E.g. BC. 1, 85. (N.S. 1), 1938, p. 8.
7 Seebelow,pp.4i9f. On Pompey as forerunner 1 4
Cf. Syme, RR. l.c It will be shown below
of Augustus see (among a vast literature) Gage^/fev. (p. 420) that the authority of consuls does not
historique, C L X X V I I , 1936, pp. 324, 336; Syme, warrant the definition by Boak (Amer. Hist. Rev.
Papers of the British School at Rome, xiv (N.S. 1), 1918, p. 23) as imperium maius.
1938, p. 3.
 THE IMPERIUM MAIUS 413
1
orichalcum w i t h the head, not o f his governor, but o f Caesar, whose name, too,
2
regularly appears on the silver o f lesser imperatores. Earlier Caesar had qualified, by
the loyal initiative o f Pansa Caetronianus at Apamea, Nicaea and Nicomedia,3 for the
4
first portrait o f a living Roman on coins signed b y a governor. ) N o w even apart from
the startling fact that Caesar's imperium was in perpetuum, such a command practically
disposed o f the accepted Republican view that an imperium was responsible solely to
the sovereign people.5 Caesar's complete cynicism i n choosing i t is revealed b y a mot
in which he dismissed the res publica, from which his imperium was constitutionally
derived, as appellatio modo sine cor pore ac specie'* and by his sarcastic advice to the
academic L . Pontius Aquila? to ask him, Caesar, for the res publica when he wanted i t
8
back. Furthermore, the Lex de maiestate, o f which Julius was probably the author,?
safeguarded not the res publica but himself. Nevertheless, a facade o f adequate respecta-
bility usually concealed the state o f mind which these sneers reveal, and i t was Caesar's
10
claim that the senate had refused his offer to take a share in the administration. More-
over, his choice o f the dictatorship had the advantage that its imperium maius was
actually recognised by the constitution." Thus he could accept it without difficulty only
a few months after sneering at Pompey's clumsier but less dangerous expedients as novi
12 1
generis imperia. Levi * goes farther, and claims that i t was defined b y the traditional
14
formula reigerendae causa; even i f this should be corrected to rei publicae constituent
16
daep a precedent was probably supplied by Sulla. A t all events, the constitution was
mobilised for its o w n destruction b y the weapon o f the imperium maius. I t may be
1
added that since Sex. Pompeius endeavoured to step into the dictator's shoes, ? he too
must have claimed (and as far as possible exercised) an imperium maius o f the same
order.
This, then, was the exceptional feature which converted the imperium o f a proconsul
into the autocratic command o f a war-lord, and these were the war-lords to define
whose position the new title o f Imperator was invented. I t was by virtue o f the imperium
1
See above, p. 13. 1 1
Livy iv, 31; cf. Greenidge, Roman Public Life,
3
E g . BMCR. 11, p. 559. 5. p. 191; L . Lange, Kleine Schriften, 11, pp. 302, 304.
3
See above, p. 396. 12
BC. 1, 85; cf. Wickert, l.c. p. 247.
For Flamininus, whose head had appeared 13
Atti del primo Congresso Na^ionale di Studi
without a signature, vide Babelon, Monnaies de la romani, I, 1929, pp. 353 ff.; cf. La constitution
Rtpublique romaine, 11, p. 391. Cf. above, pp. 151,241. romana dai Gracchi a Giulio Cesare, pp. 207 ff.;
4
Cf. McFayden, p. 26. Athenaeum, 1936, p. 210.
5
Festus 43 L ; cf. Zmigryder-Konopka, VHIe 1 4
For this formula, vide Last, CAH. ix, pp. 283 f.
Congr. int. des sciences historiques, 1938,1, p. 25. 5 Cf. Adcock, CAH. ix, p. 900 n. 6; Homo,
x

Suet. Caes. 77; cf. Wickert, Klio, 1937, pp. 249 f. Roman Political Institutions, p. 191; Syme, RR.
7
On whom vide Pais, Studi storiciper I Antichita p. 52.
dassica, v, 1912, pp. 129 ff. 1 6
Cf. Last, I.e.; pace McFayden, Washington
Suet. I.e. 78; cf. Zmigryder-Konopka, l.c. p. 23. Univ. Studies in Language and Literature, ill, 1930,
9
See above, p. 405. p. 65. For the pretensions of the tide vide Syme,
1 0
See above, p. 6. RR. pp. 52, 160. J
7 See above, p. 409.
414 R U L E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B . C .
maius that the entire administration o f the Empires o f Caesar and Sex. Pompeius was
carried out—without reference to the senate, as the coinage o f Balbus at Corduba
1
shows. But the lesson o f its danger was ignored. Litde more than a year after the
Ides, powers o f similar character—though not o f universal scope—were conferred on
2 3
Brutus and Cassius. N o doubt, i n view o f their scruples, only a tenure for the dura-
tion o f the emergency was envisaged; but i t was b y just this imperium that Brutus
4
overrode the proconsul Q. Hortensius, who coined for him at Thessalonica. Whether
or not these Republicans used the Imperator title i n its new sense, its close connection
5
w i t h the imperium maius, demonstrated for Caesar, becomes clearer still i n the ten years
o f the second Triumvirate. Then too the existence o f power and title alike is amply
documented. That a true imperium maius was granted to the tresviri rei publicae con-
stituendae is shown b y the vote o f a triumph i n 38 both to Antony and to Ventidius 6

for the victories o f the latter. The lack o f precedents created a preliminary uncer-
7
tainty as to his status; the final recognition that both could triumph signalises the
formalisation of imperium maius? Subsequently Antony allows his commanders many
salutations,? but, for their most distinguished victories, continues to share w i t h them
10
the titles. Octavian also showed his acceptance of this principle by allowing salutations
11
to certain of his subordinates. I t is scarcely necessary to add that, as long as they were
at large, Lepidus and Sex. Pompeius were i n no way behindhand w i t h their claims.
But L . Antonius Pietas, according to the sources of A p p i a n , " deliberately contrasted the
1
revolutionary imperium maius w i t h his own consular imperium. ^ This gesture is the
exception which proves the rule o f imperium maius by all other governments o f the
period. U n t i l 33 B . C . at least, i t was the basis o f every executive activity. The dictator-
ship was abolished i n 44, but its vicious characteristic remained—and indeed so
14

15
increased that, i n retrospect, even the rule o f Caesar seemed a Golden Age.
I t is therefore not an accident that we have, from all sides, evidence that the new title
of Imperator persisted simultaneously. The earliest document of the period is, like those
o f the previous decade, a neglected coin. A N T O N I V S IMP., on an Italian aes piece
struck i n 40-39 by L . Sempronius Atratinus, is half-way between M. Antonius Imp.
16

and Imp. Antonius. The exceptional omission o f Antony's personal praenomen on an

1
See above, p. 6. 9 Cf. Ganter, p. 45; McFayden, p. 36 n. 44.
2
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 15; Syme, 1 0
Sources in Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 50 n. 1:
Anatolian Studies to Buckler, p. 323. also Caland, De nummis M. Antonii Illviri, pp. iof.;
3
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 320. von Sallet, ZfN. 1884, p. 169; Bahrfeldt, BMB.
4
See above, p. 33. 1905, pp. 332 f.
5
For its renewal in 37, see above, p. 46. 1 1
See below, p. 424. " BC. v, 19. 74, etc
6
Dio X L I X , 21. 7 Id. X L V I I I , 41.
1 3
Syme, RR. p. 208 n. 1. For a later weakening
8
Konsulgleich—Siber, Sav. Z. 1935, p. 131—is of the contrast see below, pp. 419, 437 f. n. 2.
not enough. Gomme, European Civilisation, p. 153 1 4
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 188.
n. 1, wrongly implies that the lesser commanders 1 5
Dio X L V I I , 15. 4; cf. Syme, Papers of the
lacked imperium, i.e. that the triumvirs merely pos- British School at Rome, xiv (N.S. 1), 1938, p. 11.
sessed large provinciae. 1 6
See above, p. 37.
 T H E IMPERIUM MAIUS 415
official issue is only explicable by the assumption that he, too, was imbued w i t h the new
constitutional idea: Imperator is a tide o f competence, and that competence is the
imperium maius. Not more than a year later, as we might expect, Octavian also openly
1
took the new title. After certain preparatory steps, i t first appears on his denarii o f the
year 38;* i n the following year, i t helped to tide him over the delay i n the renewal o f
3
the triumvirate. But the appellation, as i t now is, marks a further advance. I t is no
longer a suffix, like Antony's title, and i t is no longer merely a prefix, like that o f
Sextus: I M P . CAESAR differs from I M P . SEX. M A G N V S i n that the personal
4
praenomen is abandoned, never officially to return. Imperator took its place. This
change is emphasised by an entry i n the official Fasti Capitolini, dating from c. 36 B.C.,*
in which Octavian, for his consulship i n 43, is retrospectively described, w i t h accuracy,
as C. I V L I V S C. F. [C. n. Caesar qui] P O S T E A I M P . [Caesar appellants] EST. His
successful assumption o f the new praenomen is emphasised by its avoidance, from now
on, by his colleagues and enemies. Antony lost interest i n Roman constitutional
6
affairs, and fell back on ordinary titles o f salutation; Sextus, his own thunder as
Imperator stolen, tried a novel experiment o f his own by the adoption o f Magnus as a
praenomen.? Octavian was thus secure i n the possession o f the name Imperator as his
8
peculiar and personal attribute. After him, Tiberius never ventured to accept it,9 and
when i t reappeared under Nero i t was not a proper praenomen, since the personal

1
Cf. Gage, Mel. d'arch. et d'hist. XLVII, 1930, 3
Cf. von Premerstein, pp. 258, 260; pace Levi,
p. 172; Syme, RR. pp. 113 n. 1, 202 (DIVI F., Rivista difilologia, 1938, p. 115.
etc.). 4
A probable exception in the second Edict to
2
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 249, etc. That supposed Rhosus (Roussel, Syria, xv, 1934, p. 34), apparently
earlier examples are anachronistic is shown by of 36-5 B.C. (Levi, Riv. difilologia, 1938, p. 114; cf.
Volkmann, ap. von Premerstein, l.c. n. 2, McFayden, below, p. 433), is cleverly explained by Levi (l.c.) as
p. 33. For the experimental title IMP. D I V I I V L I due to the collegiate character of the Edict, in which
F. ITER, see Hohl, GGA. 1936, p. 136; Berve, the titulatures of the two triumvirs are made as
Hermes, LXI, 1936, p. 251 n. 3; Wilcken, Aegyptus, Uniform as possible.
Suppl. v, p. 108, correcting Schulz, ZfN. 1935, 5 CIL. 1, p. 28.
p. 103, who reads T E R . It is inconceivable that 6
BMCR. 11, pp. 520 ff.
both I T E R , and T E R . occur on precisely similar 7 Chief material is BMCR. 11, p. 560. 7 ff. and
coins (as Newby, pp. 6 f.; cf. Mattingly, CR. 1938, ILS. H I , 8891. Exact date uncertain: cf. Hadas,
P* 37). A similar order is found on a colonial coin; Sextus Pompey, p. 40; von Premerstein, p. 250 (4);
2

see above, p. 218. It seems probable that Octavian Liegle, Transactions of Int. Numismatic Congress
at first maintained the characteristic fiction that of 1936, p. 213; Mras, Wiener Studien, xxv, pp.
salutations were the immediate raison d*Stre of his 288 ff.; Rosenberg, PW. ix, 1145, for divergent
tide, especially as Agrippa refused these (Dio XLVIII, opinions.
49* 4J cf. Hammond, p. 50) as though they were 8
This seems to qualify the. otherwise salutary
responsible for the new title. It has been shown, observation of Kornemann, Gercke-Nordens Bin-
however, that the real basis was different. Pre- leitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, ill, 2, 1933,
Actian manifestations of the title were surprisingly pp. 71 ff., that Octavian was, during the triumvirate,
unknown to Schoner, Acta seminarii philologici as openly a Hellenistic pccaiAeOs as Antony.
Erlangensis, n, 1881, p. 452. 9
See also below, p. 440.
416 R U L E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B.C.
1 2 3
praenomen was not superseded. The same is true o f the uses by Galba, O t h o and
4
Titus —so closely connected w i t h the first princeps was the distinctive name. Never-
theless, Octavian enhanced its glory by an obvious manoeuvre, when he attributed i t
retrospectively i n the same autocratic sense to the divine Julius,* just as Cn. and Sex.
Pompeius, Imperatores filii, had applied the title to their own dead father. Octavian,
then, was the Marshal both by hereditary and by personal right. His new name was a
direct and conscious derivative o f the active imperium maius, which had supplied also
the titles o f Caesar, Antony and their rivals. By its assumption, Octavian made him-
self inseparable from the imperium maius, just as Sulla's offspring had consciously
6
associated themselves w i t h their father's renowned Fortuna by the adoption o f the
8
praenomina Faustus? and Felix. Thus he revived the ancient connection o fpraenomina
10
w i t h a feeling o f power.? This was a remarkable piece o f statesmanship: provinciae
might be voted and lapse, but i t was difficult to see how a man whose very name
signified the special imperium could ever lack i t . " Nor was this a rash renewal o f the
dictator's mistake: the Lex Tina, by its temporal limits and collegiality, had avoided
13
the odium o f dictatorship," and the popular vote was emphasised.
Sextus's counterblast to Octavian, the praenomen Magnus, duly stressed his i n -
heritance, and conveniently avoided the question o f aprovincia. Thus i f the fundamental
quality o f Octavian was to be imperium—'rule', that o f Sextus was to be magnitudo—
' greatness'. Comparable is the slogan Pietas which L . Antonius had incorporated into
14
his name (though only as a cognomen) at Perusia. That Sextus's praenomen, like
Octavian's, was intended to have royal implications is shown by its retention by
1 16
descendants * and its removal from one o f them by Caligula, although i n his time its
significance was merely antiquarian. By the fortunes o f war i n 36 B . C . , i t left the future
to Octavian's praenomen Imperatoris,^ which was based directly on military imperium
maius.
When the second quinquennium elapsed at the end o f 33, Antony had recourse to an
1
'Nero' is the formal praenomen (cf. Mommsen,
1 1
This was a kind of safeguard against the
Neues Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie, i860, temporary character of his successive powers—
Bd. 15, p. 169). emphasised by Sprey, Mnemosyne, ill, 1935,
a
BMC. Imp. 2 ff. 3 Ibid. 1 ff. pp. 291 ff.
4
M. and S. 11, pp. 116 ff. " Cf. Levi, Athenaeum, xxvi, 1939, p. 88; id.
* E.g. Fasti Vallenses {CIL. i , p. 140); cf. von Rivista difiblogia, 1939, p. 123.
a

Premerstein, p. 246. 1 3
Appian, BC. iv, 8.
6
Cf. Berlinger, Zur inoflfoiellen Titulatur, Diss.1 4
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 208; Charlesworth, CAH. x,
Breslau, 1935, p. 9; Carcopino, Sylla, pp. 107 ff. p. 28.
7 Cf. Mommsen, Rbmische Forschungen, 1, 1864, 5 Cf. Marini, Fasti Arvalium, p. 75.
x

p. 34 n. 50. 1 6
Suet. Cal. 35; cf. Mommseri, Neues Rheinisches
8
Cf. Levi, Rivista difilologia, 1932, p. 218. Museum, i860, Bd. 15, p. 169.
9 Mommsen, l.c. p. 43. *7 Octavian appropriated another of Sextus s
1 0
It is traditionally associated with Agrippa, titles too, custos terrae marisquei IGRR. iv, 3°9>
whose name appears on the reverse of the denarii. 315; cf. Syme, RR. p. 473.
 THE IMPERIUM MAIUS 417
1
illegal prolongation o f his triumviral powers, but w i t h apology and a promise to
abandon them at the earliest possible opportunity. Octavian must be taken at his word,
as far as the letter o f the law went,* when he denies such a prolongation. I n 32, then, 3

he possessed no triumviral imperium maius: L . Cornificius and A p . Claudius Pulcher

triumphed i n their o w n right. Furthermore, the coniuratio of that year 5 was i n no way
4

connected w i t h this imperium and did not at once take its place, but was an oath o f 6

personal fealty, as o f clients to a patronus, against a private inimicitia w i t h Antony.?

Nor can any trace o f an imperium be detected i n Octavian's actions during the year,
which reveal a considerable embarrassment, not appreciably lessened by the alleged
spontaneity o f the coniuratio* and by the fact that his very name expressed rule. The 9

year 32 witnessed an exceptional break i n the imperium, whose renewals i n various

forms carried i t without a second gap to its fifty-seventh year. Attention was
diverted from its momentary absence b y an unusually vicious outburst o f propa-
10
ganda.
In the following year the threads can be gathered again. I t is possible to demonstrate
that, from 31 to 28, the regime o f imperium maius, expressed by the special appellative
of Imperator, continued i n the same constitutional forms as had prevailed since its
inauguration during the dictatorship. The need for this appellative to be confirmed by the
senate in 29 —after the triumph o f that year —and its subsequent publication on an
11 12

extensive coinage entirely accord w i t h its close connection w i t h the imperium and clearly
13

recall the latter's old meaning. By immemorial tradition a triumph implied the abandon-
ment of the imperium by which it had been earned, and such an abandonment is known to 14

have taken place in 29.^ Thus the senatorial decree was i n no sense a tautological repeti-
1
Dio L , 7. 1; cf. Berve, Hermes, L X X I , 1936, Kahrstedt, GGA. 1938, p. 8; Volkmann, Forsch-
p. 251; Syme, RR. p. 279. ungen und Fortschritte, 13, xxx, 1938, p. 349.
2
For the discrepancy between this and the real Salutary remarks on the real character of these 8

position vide Syme, RR. p. 277 n. 6. familiar plebiscites are made by Syme, RR. pp.
3
RG. 7—per continuos annos decern—cf. Tarn 284 ff.
and Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 94, etc.; pace 9 A municipality does not omit the praenomen
Wilcken, Berlin SB. 1925, p. 83. Kolbe, Hermes, Imperatoris in an inscription of this year (JLS. 77;
XLIX, 1914, pp. 274 f.; Rice Holmes, Architect, 1, cf. von Premerstein, p. 249), but Octavian himself
pp. 231 ff.; van Groningen, Mnemosyne, 1926, had for some years been anticipating this emergency
pp. iff.; Roos, Tijdschr. voor Geschiedenis, XLIX, by giving publicity to the alternative title CAESAR
1929, pp. 350 ff. Cf. Syme, l.c. p. 292. D I V I F. (see above, p. 49).
4

5
On the question of its exact date see (most Cf. Scott, Memoirs of the American Academy in 1 0

recently) Last, JRS. XXVIII, 1938, p. 213. Rome, 1933, pp. 37 ff.
6
Cf. Glauning, Die Anhdngerschoft des M. 1 1
Dio L I I , 41. 3; cf. von Premerstein, p. 252, etc.
Antonius und des Oktavian, p. 44 n. 1; pace Caspari, 1 2
Cf. Kornemann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 563.
C
Q- v, 1911, pp. 234 f. 1 3
Cf. Mattingly, JRS. 1919, p. 218.
First apparently seen by Markowski, Eos,
7 1 4
Cf. McFayden, p. 5 n. 17, etc.
xxxiv, i 9 3 pp. ft. f.
3) Premerstein, p. 40;
4 7 7 c v o n Cf. Berve, Hermes, L X I , 1936, p. 250; Barwick,
id. Phil. Woch. 1935, p. 316; VigdmoX, Journal des Philologus, xci, 1936, p. 352; Kornemann, Klio,
Slants, I 9 3 7 j p p. l 6 y f. Stone, CR. 1938, p. 35;
; 1938, pp. 84 f.
4 i8 R U L E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28B.C.
tion o f the assumption o f the name i n c. 38. The same close connection w i t h imperium,
which existed i n 38 and 29, explains another phenomenon which has sometimes been
1
noted w i t h surprise: all the other elements o f the titulature o f Augustus are recorded
in the Res Gestae, but there is no mention whatever o f the praenomen Imperatoris. The
scheme of the Res Gestae is complete, but economical: thepraenomen is merely an expres-
sion o f imperium, and thus the princeps merely says ( o f Jan. 1, 43 B . C . ) senatus....
2

imperium mihi dediO There is no need to mention the praenomen, since i t was consti-
tutionally dependent upon imperium. Nor can i t reasonably be objected that, since
Octavian did not already i n 43 deduce the title from this imperium, the latter does not
explain the absence of the praenomen from the Res Gestae: he, like his contemporaries,*
indulged frequendy i n tendencious misinterpretations o f the near past. His propa-
ganda is full o f them,* but particularly relevant is his application o f this very title to
6
Caesar on official documents, though the dictator's own coinage had invariably
avoided the prefix. I n the present case the starting point o f his campaigns i n 43 in
libertatemi is highly suitable for such a perversion o f accuracy; indeed, its anniversary
8
remained for centuries an occasion for celebration. Furthermore, not only does the
princeps, i n his Res Gestae, refrain from mentioning the praenomen, but he does not
allude to any o f the subsequent renewals and readjustments o f the imperium:^ these,
and the title which had accompanied them, were, for purposes of propaganda, entirely
subordinated to the heroic investment i n 43. Both title and imperium are correcdy and
10

characteristically comprehended i n the single statement concerning that. Augustus's

evident desire to avoid emphasis on the praenomen is to be explained by the eclipse o f
the powers for which i t stood: i t w i l l be shown that, when the Res Gestae were com-
piled, the appellation no longer played any role except to recall the victories w o n in
the past epoch o f military rule—namely, the period initiated by the campaigns in
libertatem, continued under the Lex Titia and by its renewal, and concluded i n the
period 31-28."
From 31 to 28, then, the special name o f Imperator still played the same important
part i n official publicity as i t had during the preceding period. I t is only to be
expected that the imperium maius w i l l be found also as before. There is, indeed,
1
E.g. von Premerstein, p. 255; McFayden, p.
Gymnasium, vi, 1938, p. 11, says that these are
43. omitted as being pro- (un-) magisterial. But the
* Cf. Weber, Princeps, 1, p. 145; Syme, RR. grant of 43, which is included, was no less so.
p. 167, etc. Syme, RR. p. 337, suggests that the imperium of 23
RG. 1.
3
was so dominant that it was studiously omitted: but
E.g. Cn. and Sex. Pompeius (p. 409).
4
its powers were really very limited (see below,
5 Best appreciated by Syme, RR. pp. 427 ff.).
E.g. Fasti Vallenses, CIL. \\ p. 140, etc.
6
E.g. ILS. 108, eo die Caesar pr'unum fasces
1 0

RG. 1—eo nomine.

7
sumpsit, and, with a play on the meanings of unr
Cf. Andersen, Neue Deutsche Forschungen, perium, id. 112, qua die primum imperium orbis
8

cxcvi, 1938, p. 51. terrarum auspicatus est (cf. above, p. 411).

9 Strack, Auf dem Wege $um nationalpolitischen See below, p. 424.
1 1
 THE IMPERIUM MAIUS 419

conclusive evidence that the campaigns o f 31 and 30 were undertaken w i t h an imperium

maius, though this is generally neglected, especially b y those w h o have recently
established the informality o f the coniuratio. Without the imperium Octavian could
neither have received his salutation i n 31, nor have triumphed for Actium and Egypt.
1 2

Again, i f there was a private inimicitia against Antony, there was also a public helium
3
against Cleopatra, and a war needed a commander. I n the light of these considerations
it is necessary to reinterpret a passage i n the Res Gestae: Iuravit in mea verba tota
Italia sponte sua et me belli, quo vici ad Actium, ducem depoposcit. Iuravit in eadem verba
provinciae Galliae Hispaniae Africa Sicilia Sardinia. Qui sub signis meis turn mili-
taverunt, etc. Belli ducem depoposcit is a familiar phrase, and often a technical one. W e
4

find elsewhere universus populus Romanus... .unum sibi ad.. .bellum Cn. Pompeium
Imperatorem depoposcit? and respublica ab Augusto ducem in bellum poposcit Tiberium.6

In those cases i t naturally refers to an imperium-? i t must also i n the Res Gestae. The
style of Augustus is not tautological, and neither o f the co-ordinate clauses separated
by et can be otiose: they express different actions, the coniuratio and the grant of a
provincia respectively. This distinction is emphasised b y the repetition o f the first
clause, but not the second, i n connection w i t h the provinces—which had no say i n
grants of imperium. Augustus can speak of signa mea only because he still had imperium.
Furthermore, his command was still i n the form o f an imperium maius. C. Carrinas
became governor o f Gallia Comata i n 30 or more probably 31, and for his victories 8

9
had to share a triumph w i t h Octavian. I f even Farther Gaul was within the scope of an
imperium maius intended for Eastern campaigns, i t is clear that this was universal: since
10
Antony had been legally deprived o f all his powers, i t comprised his provinces also.
A prerequisite for the further definition o f this imperium maius is the abolition o f
theories of several' cumulative' imperia. The princeps commanded in 31 and subsequent
11

years by virtue o f his consulship and that alone. Cicero twice makes i t quite clear that
consuls possessed authority i n any province which they visited: nam. .cum imperio
sunt.. .ipsiconsules,quibusmore maiorum concessum est velomnesadireprovincias; 12
and
again, omnes enim in consults iure et imperio debent esse provinciae. * 1
These were his
rulings as regards the consuls o f 49 and 43 respectively; both pairs left Italy, and,
14

between those years, Dolabella did likewise i n 44.^ Nor can Cicero's words be dis-
1
Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. xcii. 9 Dio L I , 21. 6. Dio L , 4. 3. 1 0

2
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 119. Cf. below, pp. 425, 437.
1 1

3
This is admitted by von Premerstein, p. 41. An. vm, 15. 3; cf. de Francisci, Augustus
1 2

For the iustum bellum vide Baviera, Archivio (1938), p. 75.

giurUico Filippo Serafini, N.S. I , 1898. 1 3
IV Phil. 9.
4
RG. 25. «4 The latter commanded in the campaign of
5
Cicero, De Imperio Cn. Pompeii, 15. 44: see Murina, in Cisalpine Gaul, which was still militiae
also above, p. .
4 I I 6 Velleius, 11, 112. 2. (cf. Hardy, EHR. xxxi, 1916, p. 357). Cf. die
^ VonPremerstein,p.43n.i,admitsaAb/wmandb. comment of P. Lentulus (Cic. Fam. xii, 14. 5; cf.
Ganter, p. PIR*.
I O ; , 105. 447; McFayden, Syme, RR. p. 162 n. 1).
n

P. 36 n. 44; f. Syme, RR. p. 302 n. 5.

c Appian,BC. 111,24.57;DioXLV, 12.2,XLVII,29.1.
420 R U L E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B . C .
1 2
missed as partisan antiquarianism, since, as Balsdon has convincingly shown, at least
ten consuls acted i n accordance w i t h them between 79 and 53 B . C . Sulla's dyarchic
3
distinction between domi and militiae is a fiction o f Mommsen's. A consul was en-
4
titled to command i n any province i f his departure from Italy was permitted by a lex
curiata.s I t was not, therefore, anomalous for Caius Caesar to hold a provincial
6
command during his consulship o f A . D . I . There is no reason or need to postulate
cumulations o f imperial i t is very doubtful whether any Roman o f this date would
8
have understood such a concept, since the imperium o f proconsuls and consuls alike
10
was described as consularef I t was natural for a consul to command the troops. For
precisely the same reason i t is not accurate to say that salutations as imperator were
11
limited to proconsuls: C. Pansa Caetronianus was saluted when consul," and, t w o
years earlier, Q . Fabius Maximus was consul for a fortnight before he triumphed and so
13
abandoned his title o f salutation. The late Republican version o f the title was also not
14
inconsistent w i t h the consulship.
1
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 162 n. 1. procos. +cos. after 19 B.C. * approaches the in-
2
JRS. xxix, 1939, pp. 58 f., 63 n. 50. credible*.
3
St. R. I I , pp. 94 f.; Gesammelte Schriften, iv,
8
Cf. Sunden, De romerska antikviteterna?, p. 215,
p. 130, followed (most recently) by Strack, l.c. p. 13; for the naivete' of most contemporary constitutional
Hammond, p. 9; Lombardi, Civilta. Romana, x, thought. In the case of Pompey in 52 such a
1939, p. 113. Those who fine down Mommsen's cumulation might seem to have occurred because
*law' to a * convention* are listed by Balsdon, I.e., Pompey, already pro consule, became consul. But
p. 58 n. 11. de jure it was now as consul, not pro consule, that
4
It is not, however, true to say with Boak he continued to govern Spain.
(American Historical Review, xxiv, 1918, p. 23) that 9 Cf. Mommsen, St. R. 11, p. 647 n. 1. See also
3

consuls automatically possessed universal imperium below, p. 426.

maius, since (1) Cicero only says that they com- 1 0
Cf. Stroux, Die Antike, 1937, p. 203. This
manded where they were (i.e. not in absentia, like principle is rightly applied to Augustus by Kro-
holders of /. m.); (2) a specific provincia militiae had mayer, Die Rechtliche Begrundung des Principals,
to be voted, as to Augustus in 27 (see below, p. 426). pp. 33 f.; Pelham, Essays, pp. 60 ff.; Betti, / /
Cicero's statements therefore, although naturally carattere giuridico delprincipato di Augusto, p. 11; de
opportunistic, do not quite warrant condemnation Francisci, Studi Bonfante, p. 24; Siber, Abh. Leipiig,
as 'the most impudent sophistries' (Syme, RR. 42, in, 1934, p. 1 n. 7; it is perhaps implied by
p. 162). The distinction between the imperium of Charlesworth and Tarn, CAH. x, p. 99 (the con-
consuls and the imperium maius of triumvirs was sulship of 31 'gready strengthened Octavian's
underlined for publicity purposes by L . Antonius position') and by Stevenson, JRS. xxvi, 1936
(cf. Syme, l.c p. 208 n. 1). Thus it is hardly true to (referring to 27). For earlier consular provinciae,
say that Augustus could control, by his imperium id. RPA. p. 53.
consulare of 27, the governors of provinces not in 11
Cf. Hammond, pp. 13, 39, etc.; McFayden,
his provincia (as Syme, l.c p. 315: see below, p. 2 n. 8. 12
Cf. Cic. XIV Phil. 9. 25.
p. 426). 1 3
Cf. Brassloff, PW. vi, 1791.
5 For this stipulation vide Syme, RR. p. 279 n. 2, 1 4
E.g. perhaps Pompey (p. 412). Cf. also Dio
who points out that in this respect the consuls of 49 XLiii, 44. 2, who points out that either imperium
(like those of 32) were not in order. militiae or domi (TIV& CCOTOT4XT| fiysnoviav f\ Kal
Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 156.
6
aAAnv TIVC< l^ouaiav—cf. McFayden, p. 8)
1 Last, JRS. xxviii, 1938, p. 213, accepts this warranted this title. McFayden, ibid., arbitrarily
view when he says that the common view of imp. denies the truth of this.
 T H E IMPERIUM MAIUS 421
Consuls, then, could be called imperator, and could hold an imperium militiae as well
as domi. Thus the consulship alone was the basis o f Octavian's imperium maius and
appellative of Imperator in 31. I t is significant indeed that Antony's last official aes coin,
struck at Patrae (?) early i n 31, omits all his usual titles, and describes him merely as
1

Y T T A ( T O S ) T . He thus lays claim, as his highest distinction, to the consulship o f which

2
the government at Rome had deprived h i m ; for this was the foundation o f his ad-
versary's supremacy, as i t had been and remained his own most effective constitu-
3 4
tional justification. Coniurationes on both sides were gestures o f psychological
value; but Actium was fought, and Egypt occupied, by virtue o f consulships, to which
were assigned, maiore cum imperio, aprovincia including the whole Empire: its holder
was distinguished from lesser governors by the name of Imperator. The last man to have
held such a provincia, Julius, had held i t as dictator; Octavian preferred to justify his
equally revolutionary appointment as dux belli.* I n this way he was, as always, careful
6
to avoid the odium that had assailed the dictator. The earlier definition was vague, and
had even lent itself to extension inperpetuum: but i t was clear enough that the end o f
the war terminated Octavian's commission. O n the other hand, his elections to the
consulship did not cease, so that the abandonment o f the universal provincia really
depended upon his o w n definition o f the end o f the war. Since no move was made
until the summer o f 29, he presumably regarded the Eastern reorganisation o f 30-29
as part of his commission assumed i n 31. Thus, since he still held the universal imperium
maius, a triumph was voted to him as well as to M . Crassus for the latter's first victories
in 29.7 (The coins o f P. Vedius at Tralles and C. Proculeius at Ithaca? show that his
8

agents i n some provinces did not even possess an imperium.)

Then at last, i n August 29, his triumph signalised the abandonment o f the extra-
ordinary commission, and, w i t h i t , o f the praenomen Imperatoris. He was still consul;
10
but he needed a fresh grant o f provincia militiae. The grant is revealed by a passage in the
Res Gestae: postquam Bella civilia extinxeram,per consensum universorumpotitus rerum
11 12 13
omnium. The two phrases are closely connected and indicate this date. Potitus must
14 1
refer, not to an informal oath, but to a formal potestas or imperium. * That, as the
princeps explicitly states, still comprised the whole Empire; i t continued, whether by
1
See above, p. 64. Cf. p. 370. 2
Dio L, 4. 3. 1 2
As seen by Helmchen, Dissertationen-Jahrbuch
3
Syme, RR. p. 291, cf. p. 271. derphilosophischen Fakultatiu Marburg, 1923, p. 22;
4
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 41, for Antony. pace van Groningen, Mnemosyne, 1926, pp. 1 ff.,
5
RG. 25. etc.
Cf. Kornemann, QAS. iv, 1937, p. 5. Cf. Berve, Hermes, 1936, p. 250; Barwick,
1 3

7
Dio L I , 25. 2: Syme, RR. p. 303, prefers this Philologus, 1936, p. 352, confirmed by Kornemann,
d a
* to 30.
e
Klio, 1938, p. 82, etc.
See above, p. 382. 9 See above, p. 66. As Gelzer, Meister der Politik, 1, p. 179.
1 4

° Abbott, Roman Political Institutions*, p. 267, x

* Wilcken, SB. Berlin, 1925, p. 84 n. 2, Berve,
points out that a new definition was attempted in I.e.; this seems more satisfactory than the view of
this year, but says that its character is unknown. Syme, RR. p. 307, that it is a bombastic allusion
34» to victory and conquest.
422 R U L E B Y IMPERIUM MAIUS, 49-28 B . C .
one or two grants, during the remainder o f 29 and throughout 28, and the praenomen
1

2
was re-established by senatorial decree. Thus Octavian still claims an imperium maius
3 4
over M . Licinius Crassus. Furthermore, coins o f Apamea show—by their epithet
Iulia—that his refoundation o f its colony was already legalised i n 28; the fact that, i n
the same year or a little earlier,* C. Calvisius Sabinus personally constituted a Spanish
6
municipium indicates that his own auctoritas was not yet, as later, employed by the
princeps for such activities, so that i t must have been as consul and Imperator that he
acted at Apamea. His imperium maius, therefore, still subordinated Thorius Flaccus
and (at first) A p . Claudius Pulcher i n Bithynia, and no doubt also M . Tullius
Cicero i n Asia.? ( I t has been pointed out that he exercised this check by the appoint-
ment o f confidential city-governors for extended tenures, such as Cn. Stati. Libo,
A . Ambatus, and L . Aclutius Gallus at Saguntum, Zama Regia and Venafrum
8
respectively.
I t is now clear that the great commands o f 49-28 B . C . were, as far as their titles were
concerned, o f the most diverse character, including dictatorships, proconsulates,
triumvirates, and finally consulships. They were connected, however, i n one vital
respect: each was based on an imperium maius, the revolutionary element which per-
mitted the un-Republican subordination o f imperia to an imperium. The clause i n the
constitution which permitted dictatorships i n emergencies was perverted to apply its
principal administrative peculiarity to a prolonged period. I t is not surprising that the
consciences, or propaganda departments, o f each successive Leader demanded a fresh
and unfamiliar formula to adorn the unvarying basis o f military tyranny.9 Yet these
expressions o f autocracy were united by a single comprehensive word which threads its
way throughout the two decades—Imperator i n its new sense. This began by being
an informal description o f holders o f imperium maius, but already by 44 had crept
into the official parlance o f one o f the rival factions; soon, b y the degrees which have
been noted, i t became the public appellation o f the war-lords who held the revolution-
ary power.
This name o f Imperator, and this power o f imperium maius, are therefore inseparable
manifestations o f the same phenomenon. But their connection, and the isolated
character o f the period which has been discussed, can only be seen i n their true colours
by demonstration o f the following independently attested but interdependent facts: first,
that Augustus exercised no imperium maius over t h e ' senatorial' proconsuls from 27B.C.,
from 23 B . C , or at any time during his entire principate; secondly, that the appellation
o f Imperator—although since i t is an honourable part o f his personal name i t still
1
Cf. de Francisci, Augustus (1938), p. 65. For a 6
See above, pp. 158, 292.
suggested distinction between his powers in these 7
See above, pp. 384, 255, 385.
years, see below, p. 424 n. 5. 8
See above, pp. 158, 182, 285, 293 k
2
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 252. 9
On the misuse of the formula rei publicae con-
3
Dio L I , 24. 4, 25. 2. stituendae vide Syme, RR. p. 160. On the abolition
4
See above, p. 257. 5 See above, p. 163. of the dictatorship after Caesar's death, ibid. p. 188.
 T H E IMPERIUM MAIUS 423
appears i n the princeps full titulatures—entirely faded, from now on, from the con-
stitutional and propagandist prominence to which the dominant imperium maius had
alone entitled i t (and was not restored until several reigns had quite altered the theory
of the principate). I t is the task o f the next Chapter to show that these changes took
place i n 27 B . C . , and that a new basis o f power was developed i n 23 B.C. to cover
every contingency.
424

Chapter 2
R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14

A . A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27 B.C.

S
O M E have said that the 'senatorial' provinces instituted i n 27 B . C . were from the
outset under the supreme control o f Augustus's imperium maius; others, that this
control was waived i n 27 but reassumed i n 23. W i t h the aid of the coins both these
assertions w i l l be contested i n turn. As a preliminary we may point to certain indica-
tions that this form o f military government was becoming unattractive to the princeps
in the years before 27. I t is particularly significant that the official propaganda i n these
1

2
years compares him w i t h Romulus rather than Caesar: he is honoured as father and
founder rather than Imperator, and he ceased henceforward to address his soldiers as
comrades.3 Moreover, the title L I B E R T A T I S P. R. V I N D E X on coins o f 28* seems
to indicate that the control by imperium maius o f the proconsuls restored i n 30/28 was
only a preliminary and temporary precaution; and a senatus consultum, not the imperium,
is already used for the restoration o f Apamea, which was completed i n 27 but whose
epithet Iulia indicates that the decree was passed as early as 28. The reduction o f his
lictors from twenty-four to twelve* can also be cited as evidence for the diminution o f
his powers. Finally, as occasionally during the triumvirate, commanders are now
regularly allowed the sole possession o f their salutations: these are accorded i n 29-28
6 7
to T . Statilius Taurus, C. Calvisius Sabinus, L . Autronius Paetus and M . Nonius
8
Gallus. The first three are also permitted triumphs. The new Romulus thought he
need not be jealous o f military glory, until the victories and claims of M . Crassus made
him change his mind: then a new formula had to be sought, i n which the revolutionary
imperium maius could be abandoned rather than ignored, and yet control could, be
maintained.
A recent theory has argued that the subsequent reforms o f 27 left intact an imperium

1
Andersen, Neue Deutsche Forschungen, cxcvi, Suet. Aug. 24; cf. Syme, JRS. XXIII, 1933, p. 5J
3

1938, p. 50 n. 139 goes further, and cites Suet. Aug. id. RR. p. 353.
28 to prove that a change was mooted in c. 30. But 4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 691. See above, p. 384.
the passage in question refers to 27 (cf. Shuckburgh, 5 F . E . Adcock has suggested to me that the
ed., p. 61) and to a complete abandonment of re- change consisted of a restriction of his powers to the
sponsibilities, as the sequel shows: De reddendo, level of his colleague in the consulship, and that this
republica bis cogitavit...in retinendaperseveravit. equality had not existed in 31-29. Cf. pp. 293f»
2
Cf. Kornemann, Klio, 1938, p. 82, and material 384 ff. for events of this period,
in Gage, Mel. d'arch. et d'hist. XLVII, 1930, pp. PIR. ill, 264. 615.
6

167 ff. ..7

PIR*. 1, 32. 1680. For Sabinus, see pp.
PIR. 11, 412. 105; cf. McFayden, p. 36 n. 45'
8
 A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM IN 27B.C. 425
1
maius over the 'senatorial' provinces. The positive grounds for this view consist
2
merely o f the record o f so-called mandata. Those, however—if they are indeed to
3
be ascribed to this and not a later date —were still entirely informal like all the other
executive pronouncements o f the princeps. I t is quite erroneous to read into any o f them
4
the formalisation o f Ulpian's day. Control was not, indeed, lost, as the head and name
5
of Augustus on official coins o f the proconsul M . Acilius Glabrio show: but the founda-
tion coinages o f colonies have given decisive indications that i t was, from 27 B . C . ,
exercised i n a different manner. I n c. 29-28 C. Calvisius Sabinus is still able, by virtue
6

of his imperium, to be called conditor municipi at Saguntum; but i n 27 Augustus himself 7

8
is the refounder of Apamea. This is the first o f a series o f foundations i n 'senatorial'
provinces undertaken, as coins o f Pella? suggest, by the auctoritas o f the princeps, the
10
proconsul being merely his adsignator or curator. Moreover, that auctoritas is the
yvcburj which Primus must invoke, since he cannot claim to have acted at the behest o f
11
a superior imperium; i t is owing to lack o f the latter that Augustus takes no official
credit for the triumph o f Sex. Appuleius i n 26 from 'senatorial' Spain." Furthermore,
the sentence post id tempus auctoritate omnibus praestiti, following the description o f
events of 28-27 (in consulatu sexto et septimo), implies a strong contrast between the
13
later reign o f auctoritas and the previous domination b y definite powers. This is
another indication that imperium maius came to an abrupt end i n 27. Finally, i t was
in that very year that the princeps took the name o f Augustus, which is linked i n the
1
closest possible way to the conception o f auctoritas. * Henceforward the praenomen Im-
15
peratoris is no longer stressed. Augustuswas the symbol of the new regime o f auctoritas,
just as Imperator had been the symbol and direct outcome o f the old imperium maius.
Augustus replaces Imperator as the catchword o f the new order; auctoritas replaces
imperium as its substance. This is precisely what Velleius means when he speaks o f
16
imperium magistratuum adpristinum redactum modum: this is how the sovereign people
obtained its due. The imperium o f Augustus from 27 to 23—not 'proconsular' or
17 18

$iber, Sav. Z. LVII, 1937, p. 10; von Pre-

1
See above, p. 281. 9
See above, p. 294. 1 0

merstein, p. 231, cf. n. 6; Strack, Aufdem Wege ium See above, p. 84. 11
PIR\ 1, 961. 187. 12

nationalpolitischen Gymnasium, vi, 1938, pp. 6, 9. 1 3

I owe this point to F . E . Adcock.
1 4
Riccobono, Annali del Seminario giuridico della R. Muller, Mededeelingen der Kon. Akademie van
Univ. di Palermo, xv, 1936, can scarcely be cited Wetenschappen, Afd. Lett., Deel 63, Ser. A, xi,
with confidence in favour of this view, since on 1927, p. 8; Levi, Rivista difilologia, 1938, p. 198;
P« 374 he speaks of an imperium militiae infinitum in cf. Gag6, Mil. a"arch, et a"hist, XLVII, 1930, pp. 161 ff.,
2
7 B.C, but on p. 487 says that this same grant was etc. The alternative derivation of Augustus from
nonpiu infinitum ma sempre illimitato. ug- vigere (Vanicek, Etymologisches Worterbuch, 11,
E.g. Dio LIII, 15. 4; cf. Kreller, PW. xiv, 1023; 1877, p. 865; cf. Schoner, Acta seminariiphilologici
2

cf. below, p. 43 1# Erlangensis, 11, 1881, p. 459) cannot be accepted.

^ This is questioned by Andersen, L c p. 62. See below, p. 440. 1 5
11, 89. 3. 1 6

h e s e a r e 1 7
all discussed in connection with the Cf. Zmigryder-Konopka, Vllle Congres inter-
y e
^ * ( r
helow, pp. 430 ff.).
3 s e e
national des sciences historiques, 1938,1, p. 24.
7 a k ^ P. 81. 0
See above, p. 292.
6 1 8
Proconsular + consular—Kolbe, Das Erbe der
above, p. i 8 , » See above, p. 257.
5 Alten (2R.), X X , pp. 45 ff.; Schulz, Wochenschrift
426 RULE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14
1 2 3
'nameless' or 'exceptional' but based on his consulship —was aequum, and did not
subordinate the proconsuls. T o these he was, as far as his office was concerned, only
4
superior by reason o f the traditionally greater auctoritas o f the consuls: thus even at
Apamea, i n a 'senatorial' province, his titulature stresses the consulship.* He was,
indeed, superior to proconsuls and fellow consuls alike b y reason o f his superior
6
auctoritas ( o f which a larger provincia was a visible s i g n ) . I t was clear enough to
everyone that a consul had a better right to govern b y auctoritas than anyone else,
and a better one still i f he was Augustus.
Government b y military force had given way to government b y personality and
by advice. Thus the vital element i n this revived Republic was the elimination o f the
revolutionary imperium maius} O n l y i n its absence could the Republic breathe;
whereas the 'restoration' as defined b y Siber and v o n Premerstein lacks even a formal
meaning. I t stands to reason, however, that a decree recognising as legally valid the
8
workings o f the new auctoritas, such as has lately been postulated, would have been
the very negation o f Augustus' aim, since i t would have caused merely a purposeless
substitution o f one autocratic constitution for another.? A special argument against
10
any such formalisation w i l l be suggested i n the next section.

fur Philologie, 1916, p. 1196; Gelzer, Historischesstill intervenes in 'senatorial' provinces by virtue of
Zeitschrift, cxvm, 1917, p. 279; Cary, A History of his consulship. Cf. above, pp. 80 f. (Cyprus).
Rome, p. 492; Miller, European Civilisation, 11, p. 289; 5 Levi, Rendiconti del R. 1st. Lombardo, LXII,
Nesselhauf, Klio, 1937, p. 308; Anderson, JRS. i n , 2, 1938, pp. 102 ff. has alluded to the part
xxix, 1939, p. 97. For the impossibility of such played by auctoritas in magistracies, by means
'cumulation', cf. above, pp. 419 f. of the auspicia. The close connection between
1
Siber, Abh. Leipzig, XLII, 3, 1934, pp. 1 ff.; imperator and augur has been noted by Gag6, Lc.
Ensslin, Gnomon, xi, 1935, p. 532; Kornemann, p. 161.
ibid. 1938, p. 562. This description is rightly 6
Cf. de Francisci, Augustus (1938), p. 76.
censured by Riccobono, l.c. p. 374. 7
Cf. Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 386;
v
Ausnahmeerscheinung—Strack, l.c. p. 8 n. 8. McFayden, CP. xvi, 1921, p. 34; Piganiol, Journal
3
Recognised (most recently) by Taeger, Nach- des Savants, 1937, p. 154; Syme, RR. p. 313 n. 1;
richten der Giessener Hochschulgesellschaft, x, 1934, Anderson, JRS. xxix, 1939, p. 97.
pp. 1 ff.; van Groningen, Mnemosyne, LIV, 1926, 8
By von Premerstein, pp. 188,192; De Martino,
p. 8; Boak, American Historical Review, xxiv, 1919, Lo stato di Augusto, p. 41; Volkmann, Miinchener
p. 23; Vaubel, Untersuckungen \u Augustus* Beitrage iur Papyrusforschung, xxi, 1935, pp. 2i8f.;
Politik, Diss. Giessen, 1934, p. 60; Betti, / / carattere id. Forschungen und Fortschritte, 13, xxx, 1938,
giuridico delprincipato di Augusto, p. 11. Stevenson,pp. 349 f.; de Francisci, Augustus, p. 97; Ensslin,
JRS. xxvi, 1936, p. 95, says this is a 'tenable CAH. xn, p. 352.
view'. 9 Realised by Siber, Sav. Z. LVII, 1937, pp. 443>
4
Cf. Fiirst, Die Bedeutung der Auctoritas, Diss. 454; Kahrstedt, GGA. 1938, pp. 5ff.;Anderson,
Marburg, 1934, pp. 13ff.;Lauria, StudiBonfante, 11, JRS. xxix, 1939, p. 97; Kiibler, Gnomon, I939>
p. 483; also above, p. 420 n. 4, where it is pointed p. 325; and Levi, Athenaeum, xxvi, 1938, p. 93, who
out that a consular imperium in Rome could not in- shows that the substitution of a legal for a moral
fluence proconsuls abroad (pace Syme, RR. p. 315). power was a Flavian development. Kornemann,
But his auctoritas almost warrants the statement of Gnomon, 1938, p. 560, reserves his judgment.
Cardinali, Augustus (1938), p. 163, that Augustus 1 0
See below, pp. 452 f. n. 5. Cf. p. 445 n. 5.
 A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27B.C. 427
Far wider acceptance has been w o n by the view that the imperium maius, though
abolished i n 27 B.C., was restored to control the 'senatorial* provinces i n 23. 1

McFaydenV arresting arguments to the contrary have been passed over without dis-
proof. His opponents can certainly prove control; but they fail utterly to prove that
this was exercised by an imperium, rather than by auctoritas. The controversy was well
3
reviewed by Hammond. But his conclusion is only this: * though this oversight might
be attributed to his auctoritas, i t is certainly simpler to accept the imperium maius
attested by D i o and Ulpian'. I f no more than this can be said, the conclusion is indeed
4
uncertain. Ulpian is demonstrably speaking o f a later date, and Dio's statement Iv Top
vnrr|K6cp TO TrAelov TCOV &acn-axo8i loxfciv is perfectly true o f the control Augustus
derived from auctoritas.* But i t is not intended to discuss yet again the evidence which
has filled so many books: extensive and significant new material is provided by the
coins. I n the first place, official aes is issued i n t h e ' senatorial' provinces, not b y virtue
6
of an imperium,but Caesaris auctoritate; senatus consulto appears too, but is found no
less in the 'imperial' provinces,? since the official authority o f the senate, as o f the
auctoritas principis, was universal. Secondly, peregrine coinages i n the 'senatorial'
8
provinces, as elsewhere, fail to provide a single example o f the title Imperator—
ccOTOKpcVrcop. The relationship to the central government o f this class o f community,
stipendiary and' free' alike, was totally unconnected w i t h the imperium, being based on
an adaptation of the conceptions o f clientela and auctoritas to current religious customs.?
It is again Caesaris auctoritate that foundations and restorations o f Roman cities i n these
10
provinces are undertaken, as a number o f coins explicitly state. N o r is the imperium
utilised for subsequent supervision o f their government, since this was ensured by a
complexity of special interventions, and formalised by the emphasis onpatrocinium and
11
clientela—which have no connection whatever w i t h the imperium. Thus Roman and

E.g. (most recently) Kornemann, Gercke- Athenaeum, Xxvi, 1938, p. 87, now cautiously says
1

Nordens Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, ill, le originarie norme giuridiche augustee...non preve-
2
> 933> PP» 71-3; Rollo, Archivium Historicum devano esattamente un imperium illimitato.
J

Romanum, p. 62; Rice Holmes, Architect, p. 29; 3 P. 58.

Lengle, Neue Wege iur Antike, xi, 1934, p. 74; Cf. McFayden, CP. xvi, 1921, pp. 34 ff.
4

Ensslin, Gnomon, xi, 1935, p. 532; Stuart Jones, Cf. below, pp. 429, 445. 5

CAH. x, p. 137; von Premerstein, pp. 241 ff.; De See above, p. 109 etc 6
See above, p. 101.
7

Martino, Lo stato di Augusto, pp. 23 ff.; Siber, Sav. See above, p. 359. 8

Z. LVII, 1937, p. . Pig iol, I.e. p. 156; Nessel-

4 5 o 9 See above, pp. 318 ff., 358 ff.
an

hauf, Klio, 1937, . Kahrstedt, l.c. pp. 21 ff.;

p 3 I 0 ;
1 0
But Miss Newby 'can cite no coins which relate
Andersen, l.c. p. 29, n. 74, p. 42; Arangio-Ruiz, to' auctoritas (p. 34) in the course of an erroneous
Augustus ( 8 ) , .
I 9 3 de Francisci, ibid. p. 82; description of the concept. Fraccaro's comment
p I 2 7 ;

tyme, RR. . ^
p 6 ^ ( wals).
n > 2 >
Era quindi inutile occuparsene (Athenaeum, 1938,
S e e p rene

CP- xvi, 1921, pp. f f . ibid, xxiii, 1928, p. 326) is as relevant here as to certain other parts
3 4 ;

PP. 388 ff.; id. Washington University Studies, x,of her book, e.g. the colonial section.
'9*3, pp. 249 ff. f. also for general principle,
; c See above, p. 317 n. 6. 1 1

^reenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 386. Levi,

428 R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B . C . - A . D . 14
Latin coinage i n Baetica ispermissu Augusti. Even a direct sanction to a 'senatorial'
province is represented by that formula, whose lack o f connection w i t h the imperium,
implicit i n its wording, is confirmed by inscriptions combining the formula with
1
auctoritas —and by a great variety o f evidence which shows that quite other executive
methods were used, after 23 B . C . as after 27.*
Indeed, i n his control o f the senatorial provinces by auctoritas, Augustus started at
the very top of the administration. I n the last decade B . C . , at a time when his own family
was failing to provide him w i t h suitable helpers, he rilled the consular governorships o f
Asia and Africa for several successive years w i t h his personal amici, and a series o f coin-
portraits shows the significance to which their informal bond w i t h the-princeps was
3
suddenly elevated. This bond was not based on any imperium maius. Auctoritas also
accounts perfecdy for the authority exercised by Augustus during his travels i n
'senatorial' provinces i n 21-19 B . C . : McFayden deserts auctoritate omnibuspraestiti
4

when he weakens so far as to suppose, like Gardthausen,* that there was a temporary
6
grant o f imperium maius for this occasion. Moreover, the proconsular title o f his
adsignator for colonial foundations i n Sicily at this time, L . Mussidius, named on coins
7 8
o f Tyndaris, shows that the princeps did not, as Chapot assumed, become proconsul
i n the provinces which he visited.
Finally, the view that Agrippa possessed a 'vicegerent' imperium maius during his
residence i n the East from 18 to 13 B.C.9 is definitely disproved by two hitherto unin-
terpreted coinages naming Q . Articuleius (?) Regulus and Mescinius, at Sidon (?) and
10
Chalcis respectively. I t has been pointed out that these, i n combination w i t h the
literary evidence, indicate that Agrippa was merely a proconsul w i t h an exceptionally
large provincia, comprising the whole East." He could not have possessed an imperium
maius over proconsuls, since his governors were legati', nor was he i n a position to
possess one, since—as his refusal to accept a triumph or communicate his actions to the
1 13
senate * shows—he considered himself to be z legatus under the auspices o f Augustus.
1
E.g. CIL. x, 5393: ex auctoritate Ti. Caesarismaius from 23 to 18 by Taylor, I.e.; Hammond,
Augusti et permissu eius. Cf. Mommsen, St. R. i l , p. 69; Reinhold, I.e.; cf. Chapot, Mommsen; pace
3

p. 1081. Magie, CP. m, 1908, pp. 145 ff.; Daniel, M.

* Even in Italy, Iussu Augusti (?) at Paestum is Vipsanius Agrippa (1933); Richardson, JRS. xxv,
merely a bald alternative for Caesaris auctoritate: see 1935, p. 102; von Premerstein, p. 134.
above, p. 289. 3
See above, pp. 229, 387. 1 0
See above, pp. 125, 386.
4
L.c. pp. 36 f. 5 pp. 806-33.
Jf
1 1
On the transmarinae provinciae which this in-
6
The inconsistency is recognised by Anderson, cluded vide Stuart Jones, l.c. p. 142.
JRS. xvil, 1927, p. 43; Cardinali, Augustus (1936), 1 2
Dio L I V , 24. 7.
p. 165. 7
See above, p. 237. 1 3
Even possessors of an imperium minus had been
8
La province romaine proconsulate d*Asie, p. 311. permitted to triumph (cf. above, pp. 419, 4 ) *21

9 Reinhold, Marcus Agrippa, pp. 167 ff.; Taylor, Probably Agrippa possessed such a power,
JRS. xxvi, 1936, p. 163 n. 12. Stuart Jones, CAH. like the
x, pp. 142, 146 hesitates to pronounce an opinion. other most important legati Augusti (p. 435 n. i)>
Agrippa is shown to have held no Eastern imperium but carefully avoided using any of its more inde-
pendent-looking prerogatives.
 A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27 B.C. 429
1
In answer to a petition he stated unSsv ccuTcp Kaivijeiv e^eivai. The inclusion i n his
command o f a number o f provinces previously 'senatorial' is immaterial (at a time
2
when changes from either status to the other were frequent ): the conversion o f a
* senatorial' province to 'imperial' administration, as then occurred, is quite different
from its domination, while still 'senatorial', by imperium maius. Thus Agrippa was
merely a legatus Augusti w i t h an exceptionally important military commission. Indeed,
3
when this was renewed w i t h a different provincia i n 13 B.C., D i o attributes to him the
4
authority UETJOV. . .TCOV kacrrccxodt.. .dpxovrcov iaxOcxai, a phrase used elsewhere o f
5
Augustus. I n both cases this should refer, not to an imperium maius, but to superior
6 7
auctoritaf to which proconsuls deferred. Agrippa's auctoritas was already proved; i t
was enhanced i n potency by his tribunicia potestas.* But his imperium was a military
commission, delegated b y the princeps. I t is entirely irrelevant to the government o f
'senatorial' provinces and provides no evidence for their control b y imperium maius.
The refusal o f salutations to Tiberius and Drusus i n I 2 - I I 9 shows that their formal
relation to the princeps was the same as Agrippa's had been. The recognition o f their
10
imperium (minus) b y salutations and triumphs in 9 B.C. (a precedent followed with Caius
x1
in A.D. 3 , and later w i t h Tiberius and Germanicus " ) is again irrelevant to the' senatorial'
sphere, since Augustus's imperium maius i n those cases only applied to his own pro-
vincia and family. There were many precedents for the endowment o f his legati with
imperium'^ and i t was absurd that the most important o f them, on w h o m his military
14
command entirely devolved owing to his age and weak health and whom he recog-

1
Josephus, AJ. xn, 3. after Actium), government of Rome without office
a
E.g. (likewise from * senatorial' to 'imperial')in 21 (Stuart Jones, l.c. p. 144 n. 1), coin-portrait
Illyricum, Sardinia, Macedonia, Africa and Cyre- at Gades in 19 for adsignatio. See pp. 255, 249,171.
naica (as interpreted above, p. 143). Stuart Jones, l.c. p. 146. Cf. above, p. 164.
8

3
Probably Macedonia-Moesia and Illyricum- 9 Cf. Rosenberg, PW. ix, 1147.
Pannonia (cf. Stuart Jones, l.c. p. 152). That his Cf. Stuart Jones, l.c. p. 154.
1 0

subordinates were still legati is indicated by the fact Cf. Mommsen, St. R. 11 , p. 1155 n. 4. This
11 3

that L . Piso Frugi could not triumph (Dio LIV, 34; warrants the definition of his command by Zonaras
Tac. Ann. vi, 10). It has, for other reasons also, been
(x, 36) as dvOOirccTos l^ouaia. His provincia was
suggested that this officer was a legatus and not composite like that of his predecessors from the
a proconsul (Zippel, Romiscke Herrsckertum in domus principis; but the words of Orosius (vn, 3),
Illyrien, pp. 24j f.; cf. Groag, PW-l\\, 1937; PIR*. ad ordinandas Aegypti Syriaeque provincias, suggest
n, 64. 289). that, no doubt on account of his extreme youth, no
< LIV, 28. 1. 5 See pp. 427, 445. 'senatorial' provinces were, at least at first, trans-
Possibly the grant of a new provincia coincided ferred to him.
with special advice to 'senatorial' governors to " Dio LVI, 25.2; Hammond, p. 241 n. 62. Cf. also
respect Agrippa's auctoritas, of which the coinage later under Tiberius, Tac. Ann. 1, 14 ff.; Gelzer,
suggests an enhancement: e.g. issues of Scato in PW. xix, 438. See below, p. 435 n. 1.
1 3

Cyrenaica, portrait on Roman coinage (BMC. Imp. 1 4

The influence of this upon his plans is empha-
Aug. no ff.) and exceptional election as Augustus's sised by Nilsson, Svenska Dagbladet, 6 and 8 Oct.
colleague as Ilvir at Saguntum. See pp. 138,159. 1925; Piganiol, Revue historique, 1936, p. 152;
E.g. coin-portraits at Apamea and Parium (soon Kornemann, QAS. iv, 1.937, p. 4.
43© RULE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C—A.D. 14
1
nised as an essential element i n his government, should not have de jure what they
possessed de facto. Furthermore, the princeps tactfully implied his equality to the senior
proconsuls, his amici, b y permitting them also to control officials w h o possessed
imperium} These adjustments relate entirely to the 'imperial* provinces and to military
problems. They fail wholly to demonstrate an imperium maius o f Augustus's vice-
gerents over the proconsuls. The same is true o f the final equation, i n A . D . 13,3 o f
4
Tiberius's imperium to that o f the aged Augustus. There were now collegae imperii*
6
and their provincia was coterminous; the 'senatorial' proconsuls were not affected.
Thus an investigation o f the vicegerency is equally uncompromising i n its failure to
provide examples o f an imperium maius over the 'senatorial' provinces. This evidence
can be supported b y information o f another k i n d which shows that, contrary to the
frequently expressed belief, t h e ' legislative' activities o f this period had no inherent con-
nection w i t h an imperium maius o f Augustus, or, for that matter, w i t h his imperium. I n
the first place, various scholars have shown conclusively that imperial decretaj edicta?

1
Vide Dio LVI, 33.4 as interpreted by Cornelius, crees from imperium are the product of a later
Phil. Woch. 1939, p. 735. Cf. also Brogan, History, period (cf. next note),
1936, p. 356. 8
The characteristic formulas dico, arbitror,
2
See above, pp. 139, 135, for C . Livineius existimo, censeo, etc. (Kipp, PW. v, 1947; Orestano,
Gallus and Capito, quaes tores pro praetore under theBullettino delV Istituto di diritto romano, 1937, p. 234
proconsuls of Africa and Cyrenaica respectively. n. 57; von Premerstein, Sav. Z. XLVIII, 1928, p. 434)
Note also L . Passienus Imp. (p. 140). are quite incompatible with imperium (cf. Arangio-
3
Siber, Sav. Z. 1935, p. 138, attributes the change Ruiz, Augustus [1938], p. 144, querying his decision
to A.D. 11, but this view is not otherwise sup- on p. 127). Edicts from imperium (except, of course,
ported. purely military ones relating to troop-movements,
4
Velleius, 11, 121. 1; Suet. It. 21. 1; Ovid, etc.) are the product of a later period (cf. Buckland,
Tristia, 11, 174; cf. Weber, Princeps, p. 34 n. 156; CAH. xi, p. 815). This is partially but incompletely
von Premerstein, p. 57; Kornemann, Phil. Woch. seen by Savigny, System des heutigen romischen
LII, 1932, p. 1174; id. Doppelprin(ipat und Reichs- Rechts, 1, p. 122, who realises that many edicts can-
einteilung, pp. 26 ff.; Gelzer, Meister der Politik, 1, not be ascribed to imperium (cf. the distinction of
p. 184; Siber, Sav. Z. 1935, p. 138. This is important Pacchioni, Corso di diritto romano, I , p. 247); by
owing to the monopoly of glory by the Victoria Pernice, Sav. Z. vi, 1885, pp. 297 f., who classes
Augusti, Gage, Rev. Arch, XXXII, 1930, p. 30; edicta with mandata; by Mommsen, St. R. i , p. 204;
3

Momigliano, Augustus (1938), p. 199. and by Orestano, l.c. pp. 230, 233, 330, who dis-
5 Tac. Ann. 1, 3. tinguishes sharply between Imperial edicta and those
6
Von Premerstein, p. 189 n. 2: neither was of magistrates, but does not elucidate the vague-
'limited* by the other, pace Dieckmann, Klio, xv, ness of their origins. Such considerations as these
1918, p. 375. have led to the assumption of a new statutory uts
7 Connected neither with imperium (Jobb£- edicendi separate from the imperium (Herzog,
Duval, Studi Bonfante, 111, p. 197; pace Leifer, Geschichte und System der romischen Staatsver-
Die Einheit des Gewaltgedankens im romischen fassung, 11, p. 151 n. 1; Jors, PW. 1107; Abbott and
Staatsrecht, pp. 124 f., Pernice, Festgabe Beseler, Johnson, p. 236; Orestano, I.e.; Piganiol, Journal
pp. 51 ff., etc.) nor with iurisdictio (Jobb£-Duval, des Savants, 1937)—wrongly, see pp. 432 f., 43
8

l.c. p. 201; pace Wenger, Institutionen der rom-n. 1, 446. Biondi, CA. pp. 159^, sees that many
ischen Zivilproiessrechts, pp. 28 f., 232 f.). De- so-called edicta Augusti are really leges.
 ABOLITION OF G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27B.C. 431
2
epistulae} and mandata —like administrative commendationesj and juridical cog-
4
nitiones and responsa prudentiurrfi—are totally unconnected i n origin w i t h any imperium
6
whatsoever. The fact that deereta or edicta or b o t h were attached to the competence o f
imperium is irrelevant, since many persons besides holders o f imperium promulgated
7
them. They were not the exclusive prerogative o f the imperium i n practice, and
existed independently from i t even i n theory. I t must again be emphasised that no one
doubts that Augustus, after 27, exercised administrative control b y instructions to
8
proconsuls; there is, however, the strongest reason to disbelieve the hypothesis which
has been so often assumed, namely that he d i J t h i s b y virtue o f an imperium^
The origins then o f these specialised forms o f Imperial 'legislation* were quite
unconnected w i t h imperium. But, i n order to avoid anachronism, i t is necessary to
1
Finkelstein, Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis, Von Premerstein, pp. 198 ff. (developing
4

XIII, 1934, p- M « > distinguishes two uses. O f

2n J
McFayden, CP. xvi, 1921, p. 43, id. Washington,
these one (coming under the heading of rescripta, University Studies in Language and Literature, x,
Ulp. Dig. 1. 4. 1; cf. Wilcken, Hermes, LV, 1920, 1932, pp. 249 ff., and criticising Stevenson, CAH.
p. 1) must date from the second century (cf. Cuq, x, p. 169) shows conclusively that these were in-
Rev. hist, de droit francais et Stranger, iv, six. X Iformal
, products of auctoritas. Cf. also Riccobono,
1932, p. 117 n. 1; Buckland, CAH. xi, p. 816): the Melanges Cornil, II, p. 375.
other comprises replies, mostly by libelli, to appel- 5 The character of these is revealed by a descrip-
latio (Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 166), which was re- tion in Gaius (Inst. I , 7) as sententiae et opiniones
ceived in various forms (Brassloff, PW. vi, 207) (cf. von Premerstein, pp. 202ff.;Buckland, CAH.
by virtue of the ius auxilii (Greenidge, Roman xi, pp. 816 f.; Wenger, Deutsche Literatur\eitung,
Public Life, p. 346), which was part of the tribunicia1939, p. 876). P. W . Duff informs me that the
potestas (cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 121; phrase in Gaius may be a gloss: but even if so it was
Hammond, p. 15) (cf. below, p. 448). For executive clearly intended to emphasise the informal origin of
measures arising from the tribunicia potestas, videthe responsa. The sententia of the senate is its
Savigny, I.e., and below, pp. 446 f.
auctoritas (see above, p. 288).
* See above, p. 425, for the unplausibility of the 6
For the confusion between these, see below,
views which attach them to the imperium maius. Thep. 432.
omission of these by the jurists from the legalised Cf. McFayden, CP. xxm, 1928, p. 393 (pace
7

constitutiones principum of their own day (as by von Premerstein [letter quoted]); and for edicta,
Gaius, Inst. 1, 5, and Ulp. Dig. 1,4. 1. 1; cf. Kreller, Lauria, Studi Bonfante, 11, pp. 508, 510; for decreta,
PW, xiv, 1023) suggests that their informality even Jobbe-Duval, ibid, in, pp. 197. This conclusion is
outlived that of the other Imperial sources of law. confirmed by P. W. Duff.
This is shown by Finkelstein, l.c. pp. 150, 162 ff., Cf. especially, Syme, RR. p. 3.
8

167 f, correcting Kuntze, Excurse iiber romisches 9 McFayden, CP. xxm, l.c, rightly emphasises
Recht\ p. 135. Finkelstein, l.c. pp. 155, 164, points
this in connection with the * Edicts' of Cyrene, and
out that the only relevant use is that referring to in-
his view is tentatively accepted by Arangio-Ruiz,
structions delivered to governors before they set out
Augustus (1938), p. 127. Cardinali, ibid. p. 163, is
«pj^ > shows (p. 169 n. 5) that the
e i r p r o v i n c e s a n d

doubtful, but decides for imperium on p. 164.

Edicts' of Cyrene (Suppl. epigr. gr. ix, 1938, p. 11)
Augustus's instructions to his troops are not, of
were not mandata (pace Wenger, SB. Munchen,
course, relevant to the present discussion: even in
^xiV2, I 9 2 8 ) p < 6 9 ) >
'imperial' provinces, it will be shown that his
U . von Premerstein, pp. 215 ff., Syme, RR. imperium was only utilised for military purposes
PP- 395 n. 3, o6 . 3. 4 n
(see below, p. 435).
432 R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.—A.D. 14
examine these origins more closely, and to simplify a subject which has been needlessly
complicated. There is not the least reason to believe that the terms discussed were
ever consistently applied to Augustus's executive measures, or that the latter can be
divided among the various categories, any more than that they can be collectively
1
termed constitutiones. Imperial deereta, like rescripta, are only known as products o f
2
the second century: moreover, their origins3 are inextricably confused w i t h those o f
4
edicta. Mandata, too, were as yet so little defined that they have been ascribed to
6
Augustus i n widely divergent connections. O f epistula* and rescriptum there are
several different meanings. There is no reason to consider the Augustan (?) BicVroryuoc
found at Nazareth as one o f these rather than another,? and an Egyptian manifesto of
8
Germanicus is demonstrably informal. The Venafran 'edict'9 is the only Augustan
10
document which appears to describe itself as such; but even there edictum means little
more than dictum, and dico is one o f the characteristic expressions (all informal") o f
12
these measures. Indeed, dicta principis are all that they can be called. The complete
elasticity o f terminology makes i t highly improbable that any classification was yet
attempted, and Flavian or later definitions are useless.^ Controversies as to whether
6 1 1
individual Augustan measures were edicta or deereta? * edicta or rescripta, * are beside the
1
See above, pp. 312, 383. at least improbable that the document is false, as
a
Cf. Buckland, CAH. xi, p. 816. Syme, RR. Zancan maintains (Atti del R. 1st. Veneto di science,
p. 468, rightly sees that a decretum cited by Ovid lettere e belle arti, xci, 1931, pp. 51 ff.).
(Tristia, n, 131) is informal.
8
Cf. Rollo, Archivium Historicum Romanum,
3 Lauria, l.c. pp. 512 f.; cf. Orestano, l.c. p. 68 (principate of Tiberius). It implements in-
4
For the obscurity of the beginnings of these structions to a private secretary.
vide Karlowa, Rbmische Rechtsgeschichte, 1, pp. 9 CIL. 4842.
646ff.; Orestano, l.c. p. 223.
1 0
Even here only • • I C T . survives. The only other
5 Finkelstein, l.c. p. 152 n. 1; cf. Cuq, Rev. hist, contemporary uses of edictum are from the unofficial
du droit francais et hranger, IV, ser. XI, 1932, p. 117 sources of the Laudatio Turide (ILS. 8393) and
n. 1; Wilcken, Hermes, LV, 1920, p. 2. Ovid (Trist. v, 2. 58): cf. Orestano, l.c. pp. 244 ff.
6
I.e. epistulae and subscriptions: Ulp. Dig. 1. 4. 11
Cf. Orestano, l.c. p. 234 n. 57.
1; cf. Cuq, Wilcken, ll.ee. " Kipp, PW. v, 1947, etc.
1 3
7
Markowski, Poinahskie Towar^ystwo Pr^yjacidl No argument can be based on the Lex de
Nauk, Prace Kom. Fil. vm, 1937, calls it an 'edict', imperio Vespasiani (CIL. vi, 930); cf. Levi,
andWenger, Sav. Z. LI, 1931, pp. 378 ff. a 'rescript' Athenaeum, xvi, 1938, pp. 85 ff.; Hammond, p. 28;
(i.e. presumably an epistula or subscriptio). But itpace Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 140. For example, the
has been shown that the extensive controversy phrase acta gesta decreta imperata ab Imp. Caes.
centring round this choice of terms is largely Vesp. provides a generalising use of decretum for the
irrelevant, since the Sicrrayucc cannot have been already crystallised Imperial sources of law. Nor
legislative (unless it was a product of the military are Suetonius, etc., any more reliable: naturally, in
imperium principis in Palestine, which is unlikely, speaking of Augustus's measures, use was made of
since this was not used even in 'imperial' provinces terms current in the writer's own day.
for civilian tasks: see below, p. 435). Furthermore,
1 4
E.g. Lauria, Lc. pp. 512 f.; Finkelstein, U .
the attribution by Markowski, I.e., and Arangio- p. 151 n. 3; Wlassak, Kritische Studien yir Theorie
Ruiz, Augustus, pp. 129 f., to Augustus is quite un- der Rechtsquellen, p. 135.
proven; cf. Nock, AJP. 1939, p, 121. It is, however, *5 E.g. Markowski, Wenger, ll.ee.
 A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27 B.C. 433
point. Many o f them are likely to have been merely informal annotations: for an
1
acceptor a subscriptionibus is found as early as Tiberius, whereas secretaries for other
departments do not appear until Claudius.*
The dicta principis which emerge from this discussion were, like the cognitiones extra
ordinem o f Augustus and the responsa given b y his influence, products o f his novel
advisory auctoritas. His use o f this for executive as for so many other purposes had
3
already been foreshadowed during the triumvirate b y his so-called 'edicts' to Rhosus,
which was at that time outside the sphere o f his imperium but within the scope o f his
auctoritas} The dicta principis 'are explanation rather than legislation's—rulings and
answers Caesaris auctoritate. I t is therefore far from surprising that instructions to
6
which such religio was attached remained i n force after the death o f their author —a
fact which causes difficulty to those who postulate imperium as their source.? Augustus
8
possessed no means o f legislation by his own fiat: for that he was obliged to utilise the
ius edicendi o f someone else or to proceed through the comitia tributa or concilium
plebis} This interpretation o f the princeps* independent executive measures as informal
is given particular plausibility by the analogy o f the senatus consultum, which was itself
10
at this time only an advisory sententia or auctoritas. Indeed, a favourite executive
method combined the auctoritas o f princeps and senate i n the formula senatus consulto
11
Caesaris auctoritate. Moreover, even when he neither used this executive method nor
acted through the comitia or concilium, he avoided a semblance o f autocracy by i n -
corporating senatus consulta i n his instructions." Sometimes too the converse occurred,
13
his dicta being cited i n senatorial decrees.
It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that Augustus's so-called legislation, like
14 1
his other activities, was based on auctoritas, * whether exercised i n the 'senatorial'
1
CIL. vi, 5181; cf. Cuq, l.c. p. 117. Holmes, The Roman Republic, in, p. 77 n. 1), and it
2
Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 687; Stevenson, is unlikely that Augustus behaved less 'demo-
RPA. p. 114. cratically' (pace Mommsen, St. R. 11 , p. 889).
3

3
Roussel, Syria, xv, 1934, pp. 34 ff. 1 0
See above, pp. 98, 288. See pp. 108,445.
1 1

4
Levi, Rivista difilologia, 1938, p. 122, points " Ed. Cyr. 5 (SEG. ix, 1938, p. 15); cf. Stevenson,
out that this is the basis of' edicts' I and II (cf. above, CAH. x, p. 167.
p. 415)* In his own provinces, of course, he had 1 3
Orestano, l.c. p. 283.
issued edicts at that time by imperium, under the 1 4
For pontifex see p. 376.
provisions of the Lex Titia (ibid. p. 114). x
5 P. W. Duff agrees with this conclusion. It
5
Buckland, l.c. p. 815. may be added that leges rogatae by Augustus (cf.
Proved by Orestano, l.c. p. 330. Manilius, Astronomicon, iv, 550) are no exception,
J Material collected by Orestano, l.c. pp. 220 ff. since although Aelius Gallus (Fest. 266) can say
Except domi for recruiting etc. (cf. pp. 436 f.), rogatio est genus legis, Festus (282) shows that the
and for equally military purposes militiae (cf. below, act of rogatio was merely consultatory: 'rogat' est
P- 435). This resembles the conclusion of Arangio- consulit populum velpetit ab eo ut id sciscat quodferat.
Kuiz, Augustus (1938), p. 101. McFayden, Washington University Studies, m, 1930,
Cf. Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 168 n. 3. His grants p. 71, shows that he did not possess the right of
11 ,
3
c i v u a s w
I ere confirmed by the people (Orestano, making leges datae; pace Mommsen, St. R
•c p. 224); even Caesar had admitted this (cf. Rice p. 888.
434 R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.—A.D. 14
provinces or elsewhere. He limited his powers to the necessary minimum: i t would
therefore have been alien to his method to ' possess the imperium maius, but prefer to
act b y auctoritas* S Moreover, i t is now possible to say that an important category o f
evidence which has commonly led to exaggeration o f Augustus's imperium as the basis
of government must be used as an argument to the contrary. D i o links the renewals o f
2
Augustus's provincia w i t h vota quinquennalia and decennalia: but the quinquennial and
decennial festivals 3 which he anachronistically calls by those names fell, not i n 18,13,
8, 3 B . C . , etc., but i n 17,12,7, 2, etc., and celebrated not the renewals of imperium i n the
former set o f years, but anniversaries o f the regime ( o f auctoritas) established i n 27,4
which was formally inaugurated b y the clipeus virtutis o f that year.5 Coincidences o f
6
the vota w i t h appearances o f the Imperator title i n the second century are no less
irrelevant than Dio's material, since b y that time the title was synonymous w i t h that o f
1
princeps. N o r does the anniversary o f the tribunicia potestas, b y whose years, from
23 B . C . , the principate was dated, coincide w i t h the dies imperii?
8

There are, then, no signs whatever o f any emphasis accorded to Augustus's military
powers outside their limited 'imperial' province. The whole substance o f the restituta
res publica i n 27 was the abandonment o f the revolutionary imperium: i t was indeed
9
far from the princeps intentions that the new Golden Age should last only four years.
So distant was v o n Premerstein from the truth when he considered a permanent
10
imperium maius to have been the corner-stone o f the principate. I t did not even exist.
Until the end o f Augustus's principate the only provinces i n which his imperium was
valid were those which he was theoretically engaged i n pacifying," and which, when
peaceful, were to be—and to some extent were"—restored to the senate.
It can however be proved, by reference to the coinage, that even i n these 'imperial*
provinces the regular non-military administration was based on Augustus's auctoritas
1
Giles, CR. XLIX, 1935,4). 198. This would have politischen Gymnasium, vi, 1938, p. 17; Andersen,
involved quite a different principle from his only Neue Deutsche Forschungen, cxcvi, 1938, pp. 47 £>
partial application of the tribunicia potestas after 36 pace Wissowa, PW. iv, 22655 Piganiol, Journal des
(see below, p. 449), since the content of that novel Savants, 1937, p. 153.
power was undefined, whereas the various aspects 5 Cf. Sutherland, JRS. xxvin, 1938, p. 137.
of the imperium were well-known and frequently M. and S. in, p. 288, no. 945, p. 232, nos. 243 ff.,
6

utilised. It will, however, be shown that his pre- p. 292, nos. 987ff.provide these, as H . Mattingly
sence in Italy necessitated certain military functions points out to me.
(see below, p. 438). 2
LVII, 24. 1, etc. 7
Cf. von Premerstein, p. 260.
3 For the existence of these vide Aymard, Mil. See below, p. 449.
8

a"arch, et d*hist. LV, 1938, p. 54. One of them 9 Hammond, Memoirs of the American Academy
(12 B . C ) celebrated the conferment of the chief- in Rome, xv$ 1938, p. 60.
priesthood, which Homo (Milanges Gloti, p. 443) 1 0
Pp. 234 ff. .
interestingly calls one of the three bases of rule; cf. 1 1
Strabo xvn, 840; Dio u u , 2; Suet. Aug. 47 5 cf«
Kornemann, QAS. iv, 1938, p. 11, 'the first plebi- Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 211; Andersen, l.c. p. 58, cf.
scite of the dawning monarchy'. p. 102.
4 12
This is shown in detail by Strack, Gnomon, E.g. Cyprus, Narbonensis, Baetica (Broughton,
1937, p. 678; id. Auf dem Wege ium national- ES. iv, p. 594; Cardinali, Augustus, p. 161, etc.).
 A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27 B.C. 435
rather than his imperium} I t is, i n the first place, suggestive that the Roman SC
2
currency circulated unchecked i n 'imperial' just as in'senatorial' provinces. Senatus
consulta did not originate from imperium. Moreover, not only were SC issues minted
3
i n ' imperial' provinces i n East and West alike, but one o f them was actually struck at a
Syrian mint producing, practically simultaneously, currency w i t h C(aesaris) A(uctori-
4
tate). Here are the characteristic formulas on which administration o f the 'senatorial'
provinces was based. Most striking o f all is the deliberate opposition b y P. Carisius
legatus* o f T R . P. on his aes and I M P . on his silver. I t w i l l be shown that the tri-
bunicia potestas was, i n the finished system, employed as the vehicle o f Caesaris auctori-
6
tas for the administration o f the 'imperial' provinces as o f the rest. Finally, i t should
be noted that Q. Metellus Creticus Silanus legatusi uses the formula permissu Augusti,
%
which is elsewhere used by Baetican towns coining by the auctoritas principis and is
qyite incompatible w i t h coinage by imperium. I n his case i t is substituted for the
process T R . P.-C. A . - S . C. since the vehicle o f permission is the consilium o f Augustus,
from c. A . D . 13 endowed w i t h the executive auctoritas o f the senate.
But this was a temporary adjustment o f auctoritas, to suit the convenience o f the aged
princeps. Until c. A . D . 13 the administrative machinery i n the 'imperial' provinces was
precisely similar to that elsewhere, and based on the civilian executive for which the
coins have provided so much evidence. Even i n these provinces, then, the imperium
was not utilised for administration. Civilians, wherever they might be, were governed
by Augustus's auctoritas-. his imperium was only exercised to control the troops under
his command, namely those i n the 'imperial' provinces.9 He was not Commander-in-
10
Chief, and the disposition o f his troops along the frontiers emphasised the total dis-
1
The writer is inclined to think that this was Those officials were only entitled to it in exceptional
often a simple imperium and not an imperium maius, circumstances (double provinces, wars, etc.): the
i.e. that the legati Augusti were frequently not in same is probably true of legati Augusti. Examples of
possession of a propraetorian imperium, and that their promotion for special purposes are provided
assumptions to the contrary (e.g. by Cardinali, l.c. by P. Carisius, fighting in Spain (p. 119), and M.
p. 162) are anachronistic deductions from the Lollius, entrusted with the conversion of Galatia
practice of the developed principate (see von to a province in 20 B . C Probably there are many
Premerstein, PW. xn, 1143): (1) Augustus re- others, since the 'imperial* provinces were theo-
stored Republican forms, and the possession of retically in a continuous state of emergency (see
imperium by legati was a late development (from above, p. 434). In any case, the problem is purely a
67 B.C), which remained exceptional and carried military one, since, as will be shown, the civilian
autocratic associations (cf. von Premerstein, ibid.), administration of these provinces was not conducted
(2) Agrippa, as legatus Augusti, carefully denied by imperium. See also above, pp. 129, 430.
himself the prerogatives of imperium (see p. 428). 2
See above, pp. 92, etc.
(3) ' The conferment of these on Tiberius and 3
See above, pp. 101, etc. 4
See above, p. 106.
Drusus in 9 B.C. was considered a novelty (see p. 429). 5 See above, p. 120. See below, p. 446.
6

(4) Such multiplications of imperium were a later ? See pp. 128, 453. 8
See above, p. 174.
9
teature: it has been shown that certain attributions E.g. not those in Africa, Macedonia-Moesia.
°f " to the quaestors and legati of 'senatorial' Cf. below, p. 441.
provinces at this date are false (see pp. 141, 136). 1 0
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 314.
43<$ R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C—A.D. 14
connection o f his imperium from the normal administrative functions. This imperium
therefore was limited, since 27, not only geographically but i n the means o f its applica-
tion. I t was relegated to the military sphere and removed from the normal executive:
furthermore, i t was the express intention o f the princeps only to exercise even this
limited command as long as the emergency warranted i t . His interpretation o f the
power as military is illustrated by the frequent delegation o f all or part o f i t to eminent
soldiers from his own house. The limitation o f Agrippa and succeeding vicegerents to
the 'imperial' provinces has already been emphasised: but even i n those their powers
were purely military. Their imperium completely fails to warrant interpretation as a
1
dual sovereignty, and they were no more heirs o f Augustus than the Viceroy o f India
is heir to the British C r o w n : the cases o f Sinope and Berytus demonstrate that,
already from c. 15 B . C . , a special place o f honour was reserved for Caius. His adoption
2

as Augustus's son gave him a superior claim to a measure o f that auctoritas on which
the statio principis was based: the clientela conception was hereditary.3 Even when
Tiberius was equal collega imperii, he was not princeps, as the embarrassment after
4
Augustus's death was to show. The reason w h y this distinction was possible remained
5 6
undiscovered until recent researches revealed the scope o f auctoritas. The latest coins
before A . D . 14 lay emphasis exclusively on this aspect o f the princeps,7 and explicidy
subordinate Tiberius b y the words AVG(usti) ¥(ilius)? Great commands i n the
'imperial' provinces bore no relation to the essential character o f the principate; in
those as i n the 'senatorial' provinces the regular business o f government was based,
not on Augustus's imperium, whether delegated or not, but on his auctoritas.
I t remains to determine whether the same can be said o f Rome and Italy. I n a sense,
these were parts o f the 'imperial' sphere, since Augustus possessed imperium domi,
first as consul from 27 to 23, and then for the rest o f his principate*—without the

1
As by Kornemann, Doppelprin(ipat und Reichs- pedum depended strictly upon the auspices (cf. Levi,
einteilung, pp. 6 ff.; Piganiol, l.c. p. 164 (la curieuse Rendiconti del R. 1st. Lombardo, LXH, i n , 2, 1938,
formule du double principat, un prince de la paix, pp. 102 ff.): thus the stronger the auctoritas (which
un prince de la guerre). This view has been fre- was closely connected with augury—cf. F . Mullerj
quently attacked, most recently by Syme, RR. p. Mededeelingen der K. Ak. van Wetenschappen, Afd.
345. Lett., Deel 63, Ser. A, xi, 1927, pp. 7 ff.), the. more
2
These coinages, and many others in honour of impressive the imperium. Even in the consulship of
Caius, are ignored by those who minimise the 31-29 B.C. the princeps had not been considered
dynastic element, e.g. Sprey, Degrondslagen van bet stricdy equal to his colleagues (see above, p. 4 4)
2 >

principaat van Augustus, Diss. Amsterdam, 1933, 1 Caesar Augustus, Divif, Pater Patriae: BMC.
p. 11. See above, pp. 140, 145, 253, 259, 429, 471. Imp. Aug. 506 ff.
3
See below, p. 443 n. 3. 8
Ibid. Cf. above, pp. 136, 166.
4
Cf. Kornemann, l.c. [Doppelpr.], pp. 8 ff.; 9 For his. reasons for abandoning the consulship,
Hohl, Hermes, LXVIII, 1933, pp. 106ft; id. GGA. vide Velleius, 11, 89. 5; Pelham, Essays, pp. 79**>
1936, p. 137. Rice Holmes, Architect, 11, p. 29; Marsh, The Founding
5 E.g. by Dieckmann, Klio, xv, 1918, p. 375. of the Roman Empire, pp. 226 f.; Abbott, Roman
6
It may be noted also that the validity of im- Political Institutions*, p. 270.
 A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27 B.C. 437
intermission sometimes assumed for the years 23-19 —by a consulare imperium
1

separated from office, a not unknown phenomenon both i n the peninsula and the
2
capital. A n d yet Rome and Italy were the regions where such a military power was

1 Dio Lin, 32.5 (23 B.C.) : TT|V -re dpxriv Tf|V dv60- nearly half the four years in question; praetorian
TTCCTOV Icaei Ka6cara§ §x <^
eiv CTTe
& TTJ k<j6bcp Trj cohorts must have been with him (Festus, Ep.
Eiaco *rou ircouTipiou KcaorriOeaOai KTA. But much con- p. 233; Mommsen, Hermes, xiv, pp. 25L): therefore
fusion has been caused by Dio LIV, 10.5 (of 19, not he cannot have lacked an imperium to command
23, B . C ) : KOC! TT\V ^ovaiotv.. .Tfjv.. .TGOV Crrrdrrcov them within the city—and in Italy, where they were
6id piou §Aapev. This has been accepted by Abele, also stationed (Patsch, Arch.-ep. Mitt, xiv, 1891,
Der Senat unter Augustus, Dessau, Gesckichte derpp. 100 ff.; Momigliano, Augustus, p. 20). Von
romischen Kaiser, I I , p. 832, Siber, Sav. Z. LVll, Premerstein's belief to the contrary (p. 148) marches
i937> P* 453> Kornemann, QAS. iv, 1937, p. 11, with his theory (see below, p. 452) of the cura et
Piganiol, l.c. p. 156, de Francisci, Augustus, p. 93. tutela. Furthermore, the cohortes urbanae, which
The two statements are not only inconsistent (cf. were supplementary to the praetorians and like
Last, JRS. xxvni, 1938, p. 213), but wholly irre- them part of the regular army (Stevenson, l.c.
concilable, for the reason that the grants which they p. 201; cf. Mommsen, St. R. n , p. 865 n. 1), were
3

record are identical. It has been pointed out that to likewise without a special praefectus (urbi) during
speak of a cumulation of proconsular and consular the period 23-19 (Dio LIV, 6; cf. Mommsen, l.c.
imperium is an absurdity (pp. 419, 425). Augustus pp. 1059 ff.)—it is probable they already existed
was no longer consul: his imperium was therefore (von Domaszewski, BJ. CXVII, 1908, p. 16; Durry,
proconsular. However, just as, not a tribune, he Les cohortes pretoriennes, p. 12, ascribes their in-
possessed the tribunicia potestas, so, pro consule, he auguration to 27 B.C Von Premerstein, pp. 135 f.,
held the consulare imperium. Mommsen defines a is obliged to prefer c. 19 B . C to accord with his
pro-magistrate as one who, though not a magistrate, custodia urbis [cura et tutela], which is here rejected).
acts with equal authority and validity. Thus the im- These praefecti, when they existed, possessed the
perium of the princeps can be described in either way:imperium (Dio 11,4. 2; Tac. Ann. vi, 11; cf. Momm-
there is not the least contradiction between his own sen, Lc. p. 1061 n. 5; pace von Premerstein, I.e.),
description of censuses undertaken consulari cum but when they were not appointed—as in the
imperio (RG. 8) and a statement of Dio that these greater part of Augustus's principate (Tac. Ann. 1,
were performed by his dvBOrrccTos ^ouala (LV, 13.5). 7; cf. Mommsen, l.c. p. 1060 n. 3)—the commander
It is therefore clear that of Dio's two statements, was again Augustus (Mommsen, l.c. p. 1060; von
referring to 23 and 19 respectively, one at least must Premerstein, p. 13). Here are further signs that he
be rejected. The acceptance of the latter involves the possessed an imperium within the city in the years
admission that during the period 23-19 the princeps immediately following 23, and that the duplicate
possessed no imperium within the city. But the information concerning 19 is false. Indeed, for
praetorian cohorts, which had been established since other reasons, most scholars have concurred in the
(Mommsen, St. R..11I p. 864), and did not cease to latter of these conclusions. It may be confidently
exist after 27 (cf. von Premerstein, p. 137), were explained as a characteristic misunderstanding of a
partly stationed in Rome (ibid.). They were the grant of consular insignia. Cf. Stuart Jones, CAH.
bodyguard of Augustus in his military capacity x, pp. 138, 143; Schulz, Das Wesen des romischen
(Suet. Aug. 49; f. Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 233) and Kaisertums, pp. 24, 45; Kromayer, Die rechtliche
c

by virtue of his imperium he was their titular com- Begriindung des Prin\ipats, p. 12; id. GGA. 1919,
mander (Mommsen, Lc. p. 865; cf. Shuckburgh, ed. pp. 421 f.; von Premerstein, pp. 237 f.; de Martino,
tac^/w. . Anderson, JRS.xxix, 1939, p.97). At Lo stato di Augusto, p. 19, etc. etc.
I } 7

tms time he had not even intermediary praefecti (cf. 2

Devious attempts to explain this away (e.g.
Mommsen, he. p. 864). Augustus was in Rome for Kromayer, GGA. 1919, p. 431; Hardy, Studies in
438 RULE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.—A.D. 14

least likely to be emphasised, and where 'senatorial' authority survived most nearly
1
intact. Here, too, was centred the coinage which bears witness b y its formula SC to
the exercise, not o f the imperium of Augustus, but o f his auctoritas. \(ussu) A(ugusti) (?) at
2
Paestum may bear witness to the same methods, which we have seen to be the mainspring
o f administration throughout the Empire. I n Italy, then, even more than elsewhere, the
imperium may be expected to have had a purely military purpose. I t is not surprising
that this can be identified. Imperium was necessary for the control o f the urban and
19
praetorian cohorts 3—corps a elite intended (like similar bodies i n certain modern coun-
4 5
tries) for sudden emergencies, but especially for the defence o f their fatherland, whose
6
sons were, w i t h few exceptions, recruited for their exclusive use.? Augustus had
reason to k n o w what an enormous part Italian stock played i n a crisis. This was the
object o f his imperium domi, which supplied not only the command o f these picked
8
troops but their recruiting also —equally impossible b y auctoritas. I t is n o w possible
9
to explain the military significance o f Augustus's statement that the accomplishment

Roman History, p. 293; von Premerstein, p. 238) CAH. x, p. 123; Strack, Auf dem Wege ium
ignore abundant precedents. Just as the consuls nationalpolitischen Gymnasium, VI, 1938, p. 13.
were not necessarily limited to Italy (p. 419), so Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 204. Piganiol, l.c
1

conversely, in the post-Sullan period—(a supposed p. 156, connects the consulare imperium with
earlier example is eliminated by Sack, Hannibals the ius edicendi: but the so-called edicta of the
Marsch auf Rom in 216 v. Chr., Diss. Frankfurt, princeps were informal products of auctoritas (see
1937, pp. 36 f«, 66 f.)—those who were not consuls above, p. 430). Siber's contention (Sav. Z. LVII,
(or dictators) could be voted an imperium domi: e.g. 1937, p. 453) that the grant—which he too places
Pompey under the Lex Gabinia (cf. von Pre- in 19—was intended to enable prosecutions to be
merstein, p. 242: F . E . Adcock prefers to attribute introduced in the consular-senatorial court, is
his.command in 49 [CAH. ix, p. 635] to an extension equally to be rejected: the new 'Imperial' court,
of the senatus consultum ultimum: for Pompey's whole which was already in existence (Dio LV, 7. 2), and
position, see above, pp. 411 f.), Caesar's silvae calles- was likewise based on auctoritas (von Premerstein,
que in 59 (Suet. Caes. 19; Cary, CAH. ix, p. 513: pp. 198 ff.), served that purpose.
cf. Furneaux, ed. Tac. Ann. iv, 27), Octavian him- See above, p. 289.
2 3
See above, p. 437 n. 1.
self in 43 (cf. Weber, Princeps, 1, p. 145, etc.), C . 4
Tac. Ann. vi, n , qui subitis mederetur; vide
Clodius Vestalis between 37 and 16 (ILS. 904; cf. Stevenson, CAH. x, p. 233, for their pay and
Groag, PW. iv, 104 f. [62]; Mommsen, ZfN. xv, prestige.
1887, pp. 202 ff.), in the Transpadane area L . Piso 5
Cf. Jullian, TP. p. 55.
(Suet. De viris illustribus claris rhet. et gram. 6; cf. Seeck, Rheinisches Museum, XLVHi, 1893?
6

von Domaszewski, Eranos Vindobonensis, pp. 63 f.; pp. 616ff.;Stevenson, RPA. p. 125. These excep-
Jullian, TP. p. 88), and legati (ILS. 86; cf. Syme, tions mostly occur before the new system is de-
RR. p. 329 n. 4), etc., etc. Hammond (pace de finitely established, or in emergencies.
Sanctis, Studi Riccobono, H, p. 57) must admit that 7 TP. pp. 54ff.;Syme, RR. pp. 4 5 -5 6 f
"
M o m i

the retention of the imperium within the pomoeriumgliano, Augustus, p. 17; Durry, Les cohortes pre"-
on the day of a triumph indicated that no formal toriennes, p. 240, gives the origins of the first
limitation militiae existed. Nor does the Res Gestae Augustan recruits—Etruria, Umbria and the old
omit reference to this power of Augustus—consulari colonies.
cum imperio (for census, RG. 8). For the principle Levies in Italy did not cease in 23: vide
8

of separation of power from office, cf. Charlesworth, Piganiol, l.c. 9 RG. 8.

 A B O L I T I O N O F G O V E R N M E N T B Y IMPERIUM I N 27 B . C . 439
of censuses (lustra) also was within the sphere o f this consulare imperium. Not only
were these ceremonies an indispensable preliminary to any recruiting, but i n the early
years o f the Republic they had been entirely devoted to the drawing up o f lists for this
1
specific purpose. Furthermore, i n those days before the advent o f the censorship,
they had been i n the hands o f the consuls: i t is not fortuitous that Augustus, by an
otherwise inexplicable archaism, carried out the lustra, during his finished principate,
not by means o f a censoria potestas but consulari cum imperio, and that the censors
whom he appointed i n 22 B . C . were not entrusted with a lustrum?' I n a similar census o f
A . D . 13 Tiberius, as collega imperii, is associated: i t is only i n Augustus's extreme old
3

4
age that the vicegerency is extended to include the vital military area o f Italy.
Thus the princeps was consistent i n his interpretation o f the imperium. A t home as i n
all provinces, i t was restricted to military necessities. Emphasis on the reform o f the
imperium i n 23 5 is therefore entirely misplaced, since i t was merely a minor episode i n
military history. N o t only did Augustus possess no imperium maius i n the'senatorial'
provinces, but elsewhere too throughout the Empire his imperium did not influence
in the slightest the administration o f the civilian populations.
1
Greenidge, I.e. p. 115; cf. p. 75. limitations in time. Parallels could, however, be
2
Cf. de Boor, Fasti Censorii, Diss. Berlin, 1873, c tec ra
* ^ f ° ^ features of the new situation: a provincia
p. 30. imperio infinito had precedent (cf. Hammond, p. 15)
3 RG. 8. no less than a non-consular provincia domi, and dis-
4
It is significant of the importance of the Italian sociations in tenure of two parts of the same pro-
element in the army that the section of Augustus's vincia had been familiarised in 27-23.
imperium which was within the pomoerium (and 5
E.g. by Kolbe, Das Erbe der Alten (2R.), xx,
therefore, probably, his command within Italy) was pp. 47, 59; von Premerstein, pp. 234 ff.; Korne-
held, as Dio explicitly states (nil, 32. 5), without mann, Revue des itudes tatines, 1933, p. 264.
440 R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27B.C-A.D. 14

B. E C L I P S E O F T H E T I T L E IMPERATOR F R O M 27 B.C.

I t is on general grounds i n the highest degree probable that the special appellation o f
Imperator, which had vividly and compendiously expressed to the public the circum-
stances o f the imperium maius, should have shared i n the eclipse o f that power and the
removal o f the imperium from administration. Since, indeed, Imperator was part of
the princeps* own name, and a part which reflected past military glories, i t was naturally
not entirely suppressed. I t still served as a convenient description for the limited
1
imperium that remained. But decisive evidence from both numismatic and literary
sources can be cited to show its irrelevance to the principles and propaganda o f the new
government. After its prominent appearances i n the last years o f the old regime, the
praenomen is conspicuously absent from the official gold and silver currency after
27 B . C . I t does not occur at all i n seven o f the nine subdivisions. O n two i t makes
2

single and ephemeral appearances, whose rarity is emphasised by the exceptional

circumstances which required them. A t Emerita under P. Carisius, the praenomen
still described the imperium b y which Augustus continued to coin silver i n ' imperial'
provinces such as this, just as T R . P. explains the origin o f the same commander's
aes.* A t Rome the title only appears on transcriptions o f official dedications where the
4
full titulature survived; i t is not used as a coin-titulature. That is all. O n the Roman
aes, which was the product o f powers totally unconnected w i t h the imperium, the
praenomen Imperatoris is equally neglected. I t is only found on a very special occasion
in order to differentiate Augustus from Tiberius, the mention o f whose own extensive
imperium is, on contemporary issues, significantly limited to a cognomen w i t h salutation
number.* Particularly noteworthy is the entire absence o f the title on the currencies o f
the Greek cities, which refutes McFayden's supposition that i t played a part i n the
6 7
administration o f these. N o r are the Roman cities much more concerned w i t h i t :
a single appearance at Caesaraugusta shows its irrelevance to present conditions by the
8
inaccurate formula I M P . A V G V S T V S X I V . Thus the negative evidence o f Augustan
coinage is, as a whole, very strong: the praenomen Imperatoris is the least favoured o f
all titles.
A second and equally valuable category o f numismatic evidence concerns die
immediate successors o f Augustus i n the principate, before this had yet reverted to

1
See above, p. 439. 5 BMC Imp. Aug. 271. In the 'senatorial*
2
For these see below, p. 468; the seven are provinces its appearance on official issues (with a
'Patricia F,'PatriciaII','EastII','Caesaraugusta', single exception in Cyrenaica) is limited to pr°"
'Lugdunum I ' , 'Lugdunum I T , and the 'candela- gramme' pieces (Africa, Bithynia, pp. 139, M5)»
brum mint' (p. 357). See above, p. 359.
6

3
See above, p. 120. Cf. above, pp. 320, 323.
7

4
BMC. Imp. Aug. 77, 79, 82, 89. See above, pp. 218, 415.
8
 E C L I P S E O F T H E T I T L E IMPERATOR F R O M 27 B.C. 441
formal autocracy. For half a century there is not a single occurrence o f the praenomen
on official coinage. I t is approached by slow stages, as the divine memory o f the great
Augustus who alone had held it—and the unwelcome memory o f the autocratic period
1
in which he had gained i t and to which he had put an end—grew ever weaker. Tiberius
2
and Caligula avoid the title altogether; i t appears as a suffix under Claudius,* and as a
4
prefix—but not a praenomen —from the last years o f Nero 5 to the first half o f Otho's
6
reign. These are not the manifestations o f a regular 'programme' title, but o f one
which was hard to dissociate from the exceptional period 49-28 B.C. From 27 B.C.
until A . D . 66 such limited concrete, significance o f the title as had survived—namely, its
7
application to the soldiers i n the 'imperial' provinces —was unable to find stereotyped
expression and was subordinated to more important aspects o f the new system.
Nero's reform heralded the birth o f the Herrscheramt* as Vitellius, who was careful
to avoid the prefix, saw. This evidence is corroborated extensively by the literary
authorities. Several references explicitly distinguish between the ruler's military
0
command o f the troops—but not, be i t noted, o f the civilians —in the 'imperial'
provinces, and his administration o f all other elements o f the Empire. This is the point
10
of the words of Tiberius: SecrrroTrj^ uev TCOV 8ovAcov, auTOKpcrrcop Se TCOV orpccTicoToov,
TCOV 6£ 5rj Aonrcov irpoKpiTos eiui"—echoed b y the younger Pliny's phrase: cum
12
cernerent, cui principi cives, cui Imperatori milites peperissent. This, too, supplies the
sting to Tacitus' sneer at a timid proconsul o f Africa—whose troops were exception-
13
ally still under his own imperium and not that o f Tiberius —iussa principis magis
14
quam incerta belli metuens.
This antithesis was the conscious intention o f Augustus. The evidence of his coins is
corroborated from elsewhere. For example, the name Imperator is never once applied to
him in the official propaganda in verse and prose o f the period. Even those poets whose
1
metre permitted its use totally ignore it, * and its verb is not attributed to the ruler until

1
Cf. Suet. Ti. 26. 1; Dio LVII, 2. 1; von dominus: cf. Pallu de Lessert, Bulletin de la Soc. des
Premerstein, p. 255. antiquaires de France, L X I , 1900, p. 66; de Francisci,
2
A coin from the Greau coll. (BMC. Imp. Bulkttino delV Istituto di diritto Romano, xxxiv,
p. 154 n.) is misdescribed. 1925, p. 334 n.; cf. Fincke, De appellationibus
3
BMC. Imp. 61 ff. Caesarum, Diss. Konigsberg, 1867, p. 22. This is the
4
Cf. for Nero, Mommsen, Neues Rheinisches point of Lucan's gibe (1, 670) cum domino pax ista
Museum fur Philologie, xv, i860, p. 169. venit (cf. Syme, RR. p. 9 n. 7). Greeks naturally
5
Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. clxvi; Sydenham, neglected this scruple (e.g. CIG. ma, 49*3)-
The Coinage of Nero, p. 29. Dio LVII, 8.
1 1

Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. pp. ccxixf.: then " Panegyr. 22. 3; cf. Schoner, Acta Seminarii
the personal praenomen drops out. Philologici Erlangensis, 11, 1881, p. 449.
7
This would be the popular connotation of the 1 3
Cf. McFayden, CP. xvi, 1921, p. 39; Syme,
title as applied to rulers lacking the associations of RR. p. 314; Last, JRS. xxvm, 1938, p. 214.
Augustus. 14 Ann. iv, 23. 2.
10 r e m e r s t e i n
^ > P-160- 9
See above, p. 435. 1 5
Schoner, l.c. p. 454; Christ, Tiibinger Beitrage
Hence his and Augustus's avoidance of the title iur Altertumswissenschaft, xxxi, 1938, p. 118.
442 R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14
1
the Flavian period. A n exact parallel to the eclipse o f the praenomen Imperatoris is
7, 3
provided by the title dux, which was also relegated to the background and, more
4
important still, demilitarised. I t is noteworthy that when African communities needed
an equivalent for the praenomen i n Augustus's titulature, the usual translation was
avoided owing to its old military associations;5 and an important group o f Greek
inscriptions from Egypt exchange the prefix for the suffix to which Augustus was
6
entitled as provincial governor. Popular slogans and official terminology bore no
7 8
relation to the title, and were mostly connected with peace, not war. I t was Augustus's
desire to draw every possible contrast between the years before 27 and those which
10
followed i t : 9 the Imperial propagandists (especially L i v y ) were hard put to i t to know
how to deal w i t h Julius," who was the divine father o f the princeps but had inaugurated
the ill-starred age o f imperium maius and the title o f Imperator, both abolished i n 27.
Thus any attempt to assimilate the Imperator titles o f the military autocracy and the
earlier principate," or to judge either from evidence o f a later period, is foredoomed to
13
failure. Dio's remarks on this subject frequently suffer from the latter defect. The
title did not yet express the Herrscheramt. Before 27, indeed, i t had directly expressed
the imperium maius that was the basis o f rule: thereafter, until A . D . 10 at least, i t re-
mained i n the background, as a reminder o f past glories (and, incidentally, o f the
surviving imperium which directed the military defence o f the frontier)—but o f no
other aspect o f the new government. I t was now indeed for the most part an expres-
14
sion o f the auctoritas o f Augustus (his successors were chary o f the title owing to their
1
consciousness o f their comparative lack o f this charisma *). Augustus possessed this
quality to such a degree that, from 27 B . C . , i t became the sole basis o f his government
1
Cf. Christ, l.c. Nor do uses by Vitruvius of such difficulties: Tac. Arm. iv, 34, cf. Syme, JRS.
(i.praef. 1, iv.praef. 1) provide any exception to this XXVIII, 1938, p. 125 n. 82.
rule (as Schoner, I.e.), since—apart from the fact " Syme, RR. pp. 317 f.; i b i d . / f t £ XXVIII, 1938,
that he was employed in a military capacity (i.praef. p. 125.
2)—his invariable avoidance of the name 'Augustus' 1 2
As de Francisci, Augustus (1938), p. 77, who
in favour of 'Caesar' suggests that his work was says that the title was 'stabilised' in 27.
completed before 27 B.C. (cf. Granger, Loeb ed. 1 3
E.g. his connection both of vota and of ad-
p. xiv). ministration by auctoritas (pp. 434, 429) with the
3
For bibliography, see below, p. 444. imperium. For a 'doublet' concerning the imperium
3
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 311. domi see above, p. 437 n. 1: cf., for Dio's method,
4
Ibid. p. 312. Riccobono, Annali del Seminario giuridico della R*
5 I.e. amenonkal. Menokad—a new word—wasUniv. di Palermo, xv, 1936, p. 460 n. 2; Andersen,
selected; cf. della Vida, Africa italiana, vi, 1935, p. 5. Neue Deutsche Forschungen, exevi, 1938 passim;
6
OGIS. 655; IGRR. 1, 1206; BGU. 11, 543; cf. Rice Holmes, Architect, 11, p. 199; McFayden, CP*
de Sanctis, Rivista difilologia, 1937, p. 337. xvi, 1921, p. 35 n. 4.
7
See below, p. 444. 14
Cf. Nesselhauf, Klio, 1937, p. 3*75 Levi,
8
Pax (p. 281) is emphasised most strongly; cf. Rendiconti delR. 1st. Lomhardo, LXII, i n , 2,19 ^» 2

Christ, l.c. pp. 105 ff.; Syme, RR. p. 156. pp. 102ff.; Momigliano, Augustus (1938), p« * 9 8:

9 Cf. Syme, RR. p. 2. also Gag£, Mil. a"arch, et d'hist. XLVII, 1930, p . l 6 u

1 0
Seneca, Naturales Quaestiones, v, 18. 4. J
5 Cf. Ensslin, CAH. xn, p. 354. This made an
Augustus jokingly called Livy Pompcianus because institution of it—not an Augustan phenomenon.
 AUCTORITAS 443

C. AUCTORITAS

On the subject o f this magic property, which has rightly been called the strongest
1
moral force i n Roman public life, the last few years have produced a vast literature
which has gone far, but not far enough, towards the recognition o f its extraordinary
2,
activity. Every office, every power, and every success—the constituents o f dignitas
3
—enhanced the inherited auctoritas o f Augustus until i t became his unique and
personal attribute or characteristic, enabling h i m to act (in a way not permitted to
mere men) without potestas or imperium} I t was, i n current political theory, the
natural complement o f libertas—it was the people's return to him for what he gave
to them.
In other words, such was the force o f his record and character (and, i n the back-
ground, his armaments 5) that his hints and words o f advice, unlike those o f anyone
else, only needed to be offered to be accepted. This informal process may be at least
partly comprehensible to a generation which has witnessed, or experienced, personal
leadership i n modern Europe; but i t still presents to our understanding certain
difficulties, which the Romans did not feel owing to the concrete and clearly graduated
6
significance attached by them to such matters o f prestige. That range o f ideas is
defined by the word auctoritas, which accordingly, when referred to Augustus,
comprises all the elements i n his power which were apart from potestas or imperium.
1
Tellenbach, Forschungen iur Kirchen- und 1936, p. 1395; Siber, Sav. Z. LVII, 1937, pp. 443 ff.>
Geistesgeschichte, vn, 1936, p. 16; cf., from another 450 ff.; W. Weber, Princeps, p. 221; Stone, CR L I ,
point of view, Weiss, Grundiuge der romischen 1937, p. 29; Gmelin, Forschungen iur Kirchen- und
Rechtsgeschichte (1936), p. 83. Geistesgeschichte, xi, 1937, pp. 58 ff.; Kahrstedt,
* Cf. Syme, RR. pp. 13 n. 2, 48: cf. also Wege- GGA. 1938, pp. 5 ff.; Stein, VIHe Congres int. des
haupt, Die Bedeutung und Anwendung von dignitas sciences historiques, 1938, 1, p. 47; Levi, Rivista di
(Diss. Breslau, 1932), and Riccobono, l.c. p. 382 filologia, 1938, pp. 196 ff.; id. Rendiconti del R. 1st.
n
« 3* Lomhardo, L X X I , H I , 2, 1938, pp. ioiff.; Zancan,
3
Cf. Stone, CR. L I , 1937, p. 29; Weber, Princeps, Atene e Roma, X L , 1938, p. 98; Weickert, Die Antike,
p. 221; von Premerstein, p. 17; Anderson, JRS. 1938, pp. 209 f.; Riccobono, l.c. p. 382 n. 3; de
*939> P* 94J pace Ktibler, Gnomon, 1939, p. 325. Francisci, Augustus (1938), p. 72; Pettazoni, ibid.
4
This is the sum of the views of Heinze, Hermes, p. 231; Classical Bulletin, 1938, p. 42; Anderson,
LX, 1925, pp. 348 ff. M. Weber, Grundriss der JRS. xxix, 1939, p. 96; Syme, RR. pp. 322, 388,
;

Soiialdkonomik, in, pp. 140, 753 f.; Adcock, CAH. 447; Wenger, Deutsche Literaturieitung, 1939,
X0934), pp. 589, 596; Furst, Die Bedeutung der pp. 873 f.
Auctoritas usw., Diss. Marburg, 1934, pp. 12 ff.; 5 Cf. Todd, The Ancient World, p. 328, Biondi,
Yaubel, Untersuchungen u Augustus Z Politik usw., CA. p. 182.
Diss. Giessen, 1934, . 59 ff. Alfoldi, Rom. Mitt.
p p ;
6
Zancan, Atene e Roma, X L , 1938, p. 98, points
> 935> pp. 74 ft; Gage, Revue historique, CLXXVII,
L I
out this subjective psychological element. The same
*?3<>, pp. 289, 335 ff.; Schulz, Principles of Roman aspect is emphasised by Arangio-Ruiz, Storia del
(1936), pp. l 8 o ff. ; Klotz, Phil. Woch. L V I , diritto romano, 11, p. 175.
444 RULE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.—A.D. 14
1
A m o n g its outward manifestations are the exceptional titles o f princeps, dux-ductor*
4 5 6
conditor-KiicrTT\s,s fjyeucbv, Augustus, pater patriae, and (to a certain extent)
Imperator,^ which can, i n the briefest possible generalisation, be said to crystallise the
civilian, national, reconstructive, Hellenistic, religious, Romulean (or cliental) and
8
victorious aspects o f his rule respectively. I t is not fortuitous that the first and last of
9
these titles were derived from Julius: the title Divi films itself was a further mani-
festation o f auctoritas.
10
The princeps and pater patriae had great moral responsibilities. But their basis, the
auctoritas, was actually the chief executive organ o f the principate." This vital consider-
ation has hitherto been entirely obscured b y the current belief that the imperium maius
survived i n the 'senatorial* provinces after 28 B . C . I t did not, i n fact, so survive, and
elsewhere too the imperium was abolished from the executive. The auctoritas principis
stepped into its place as an active administrative organ. The gigantic scope o f its
1
Cf. Grimm, Zapiski S. Peterburgskago Univ. p. 363; Zancan, Atene e Roma, 1938, p. 98; Levi,
LV, 1900, pp. 156ff.;Wittrock, Historisk Tidskrift, Rivista difilologia, 1938, p. 198; Scott, Archiv fur
1908, pp. 220ff.;Gwosdz, Der Begriffdes romischenReligionswissenschaft, xxxv, 1938, p. 128; Ensslin,
'Princeps', Diss. Breslau, 1933; Wagenvoort, CAH. xn, p. 355.
Philologus, xci, 1936, pp. 206ff.;Piganiol, Journal 6
Cf. Skard, Festskrift til Koht, pp. 42 ff.; id.
des Savants, 1937, pp. 159 ff.; Kornemann, QAS. QAS. i n , 1937, pp. 28 f.; Manni, I.e.; Gag£, Revue
iv, 1937, p. 15 n. 1; Riccobono, l.c. p. 427; Christ, historique, CLXXVII, 1936, pp. 332 ff.; Kornemann,
Tubinger Beitrdge %ur Altertumswissenschaft, xxxi, QAS. iv, 1937, p. n ; Klio, 1938, p. 91; Berlinger,
1938, pp. 91, 117. l.c. p. 77; von Premerstein, pp. 168 ff.; Sauter,
2
Emphasised, e.g., by Levi, Rendiconti del R. 1st. Tubinger Beitrdge qir Altertumswissenschaft, xxi,
Lombardo, LXXI, i n . 2, 1938, pp. 114 ff.; Korne- 1934, pp. 28ff.;Christ, ibid. 1938, p. 121.
mann, Gnomon, 1938, p. 564. Cf. also Syme, RR. 7 I.e. in so far as this now largely eclipsed
pp. 311 f.; Sauter, Tubinger Beitrdge iur Altertums-title was thought of as applying to past victories
wissenschaft, xxi, 1934, p. 28 n. 1; Christ, ibid, rather than to the limited imperium which survived
xxxi, 1938, p. 118. (see above, p. 442, and Nesselhauf, Momigliano,
3
See above, pp. 318, 356. Levi, ll.ee).
4 8
Kornemann, Breslauer Historische Forschungen, Each, of course, contained additional implica-
iv, 1937, p. 7; id. Klio, 1938, p. 85; Syme, RR. tions also.
p. 312 n. 5. 9 Princeps". coin of Troas (p. 244). Pater (parens)
5
Cf. Haverfield, JRS. 1915, pp. 249ff.;F . patriae-, denarii and Dio, see above, p. 15; inscrip-
Muller, Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie tions, cf. Volkmann, Gnomon, xm, 1937, p. 313*
van Wetenschappen, Afd. Lett., Deel 63, Ser. A, XI, 1 0
Cf. Piganiol, l.c. p. 161; Klostermann, Philo-
1927, pp. 7ff.;Reiter, Phil. Woch. 1930, pp. ii99f.; logus, LXXXVII, 1932, pp. 358ff.,etc. But not legal
Gag£, Mil. d'arch. et d'hist. XLVII, 1930, pp. 161 ff.; ones, as Kornemann, l.c p. 11; Volkmann, Lc.
Manni, / / mondo classico, 1934, pp. 106 f.; Berlinger, p. 31*2; Weber, Princeps, 1, pp. 264, 692: cf. below,
Beitrdge \ur inoffiiiellen Titulatur der romischen p. 452 n. 5. See also p. 426.
Kaiser, Diss. Breslau, 1935, pp. 75 f.; Cichorius, 1 1
Already suggested by Alfoldi, Vaubel, Schulz,
Romische Studien, p. 376; A. E . Glauning, FestgabeGmelin, ll.ee, Levi, Rivista difilologia, 1935, P- 4°4
fur 0. Glauning, 1936,pp. 54ff.;Koops,Mnemosyne, (criticising Stuart Jones, CAH. x ) ; Giles, CR.
v, 1937, pp. 34 ff.; Ribezzo, Rivista indo-greco- XLIX, 1935, p. 198; Kornemann, QAS. iv, i937>
italica, xxi, 1937, p. 19; Solari, Philologus, xcil, p. 12, etc.
1937, pp. 430 f.; Altheim, History of Roman Religion,
 AUCTORITAS 445
1
provincial activities has been amply demonstrated by the coins. Moreover, not only
could Augustus delegate to his personal amici and representatives—to Agrippa for
3 3
example, both i n Rome and elsewhere —his o w n authority, but he was competent,
by reason o f the immeasurable superiority o f his auctoritas to theirs, to give cogent
advice to the proconsuls—or, i n the words o f D i o , iv TOO CrrrriKocp T O irAeiov TCOV
^KaaTC<x66i dpx6vTC0v iaxueiv. I t was by means o f this capacity, not an imperium
4

maius, that without any reference to the senate he could give instructions which had,
in practice, the force o f laws.5 Thus iussu Augusti is the formula for the enfranchise-
6
ment o f Philippi, where iussu populi would have stood before.
But he preferred, when convenient, to act through the senate. The collaboration o f
the auctoritas o f Augustus and that o f the senate for the administration of'senatorial*
provinces is proved for the very outset o f the new regime by an issue o f Apamea i n
27 B.C. The two forms o f auctoritas are often recorded i n unmistakably deliberate
7

8
combination. SC and C A alternate regularly and indiscriminately on the official
currency, even appearing on otherwise identical issues from the same mint. Instances,
N
too, have been given o f their combination, for various executive functions, i n the
common formulas ex senatusconsulto auctore Caesare, ex auctoritate Caesaris et senatus-
9 10
consulto, KCCTCC. ..86yuoc OWKATITOU. . .TO) k\x6oi ImKpiuonri, etc. The existence and
prevalence o f this executive co-operation is therefore demonstrated. Indeed, i t was the
keystone o f the civilian administrative system which Augustus had substituted for the
military regime" I t w i l l now be demonstrated that, four years after the inauguration
of the new system, a constitutional link was invented to provide for the permanent
collaboration o f the auctoritas o f princeps and o f senate, and that this element was
therefore justly—though otherwise inexplicably—emphasised beyond all other
elements i n the titulature o f Augustus.

1
See above, pp. 427 f., 434 f. 6
Sisenna, frag. 17. 119; cf. Sherwin-White,
8
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 388: and the admission of p. 132. See above, p. 275.
Stuart Jones, CAH. x, p. 144 n. 1. Frontinus (De ? See above, p. 257.
Aq. Urb. Rom. 98) describes Agrippa as velut 8
See above, p. 108.
perpetuus curator of the water-supply: cf. Homo, 9
Cf. von Premerstein, pp. 222 f.
Milanges Glotf, p. 443; cf. also responsa prudentium 10
Ed. Cyr. 3; cf. de Visscher, Comptes-rendus de
(Stevenson, ibid. p. 165). VAcadimie des Inscriptions, 1939, p. 112.
3
Cf. the development sketched by von Pre- 1 1
Syme, RR. p. 412 n. 2, points out that the
merstein, pp. 223 ff. 'rights of war and peace* attributed to the princeps
LIII, 32. 5. Cf. above, pp. 427, 429. by the Lex de imperio Vespasiani have no bearing
Since, however, even the auctoritas of senatus- on the Augustan period—pace Stuart Jones, CAH.
consulta was not yet in theory legally binding x, p. 141; Stevenson, ibid. p. 174. That decision, like
|p. 108), it is, as has been pointed out, unreasonable others of equal importance, would naturally be
suppose that the auctoritas principis was already made S C - C A . The system of Augustus is easy to
ormulated as an official source of law (pp. 426,45 2). interpret anachronistically (cf. p. 442).
446 R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.-A.D. 14

D. T H E V E H I C L E O F AUCTORITAS: TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS

This constitutional link was the tribunician power. The incidence o f T R . P[OT.],
1
without number, i n the titulatures o f Augustus's coinage enables conclusions to be
drawn w i t h confidence: i t is found on the official aes o f Italy and no less than seven
2
provinces, whereas the many hundreds of local coinages provide only two examples—
and those both at Romanised provincial centres, Pisidian Antioch and Tarraco.3 i t
must be concluded that the title is chiefly relevant to the official series, but not to city
currency. N o w i n three o f the territories on whose coinage the title appears, i t is
vis-a-vis w i t h the formula S(enatus) C(onsu/to)S Issues o f Caracalla and his successors^
6
in the tradition o f the Eastern SC mints and recently shown to originate from Cyprus,
prove that this coincidence is not fortuitous. O n them appear within a wreath, in
juxtaposition and without additional legend, the two formulas SC and A(r)uccpxiKfjs)
7
E(§OVCTICCS). Their deliberate conjunction confirms the indications o f the Augustan
statistics. So does the coinage o f P. Carisius, who invariably places on his denarii
Augustus's praenomen Imperatoris but invariably also omits i t on his aes: i n its place is
8
T R I B V N I C I A P O T E S T A T E . Carisius's silver was imperatorial, whereas official
aes was issued by senatus consultaf here, then, is yet another indication that these were
connected w i t h the tribunician power.
The clue to this connection is provided by the currencies revealing that the senatorial
decrees which sanction aes coinage were, i n many or all cases, passed on the motion of
10
Augustus—C(aesaris) A(uctoritate). This formula actually appears at two mints which
11
issue similar and contemporary coinage with S. C. and T R . P. The power which gave
him authority to bring forward such motions was the ius senatus consulendi™ facilitated
13 1
by a iusprimae relationis and ius senatus cohferendi. * These powers were now, like the ius
1
Its rare occurrences with a number cannot be der k. sacks. Ges. der Wissenschaften iu Leipzig,
taken into consideration, since they are merely ph.-h. Kl. in, 1851, p. 209 n.).
chronographic. 8
See above, p. 120. See above, p. 97.
9

a
Syria, Cyprus, Asia, Hispania Ulterior, Cyre- See above, p. 108.
1 0
See above, pp. 991*., 106.
1 1

naica, Bithynia, Africa. See above, pp. 99 f., 106, 1 2

Cf. Hammond, p. 82; Heitland, Roman Re-
119, 135, 145, 139. public, in, p. 510: this aspect emphasised by
3
See above, pp. 251, 219. Greenidge, Roman Public Life, p. 346. ,
4
Italy, Syria, Cyprus, pp. 91 ff., 100, 99. Dio LIII, 32. 5, mentioned with tribunicta
1 3

5 BMC. Galatia, etc. pp. 194. 357, 198. 383 ff., potestas. This is the logical outcome of the uts
etc. On some AE occurs alone (ibid. p. 205. 447). senatus consulendi, and was therefore thought
6
Westholm, Temples of Soli, p. 135 (confirmed of as connected with the potestas, cf. Homo,
by C . Bosch). Roman Political Institutions, p. 222 n. 1; Hellems,
7 Cf. Regling, WMK. p. 123, s.v. A.E. Titula- Lex de Imperio Vespasiani, Diss. Chicago, i9° > 2

tures of many Emperors combine to make this O'Brien Moore, PW. Suppl. vi, 772; Greenidg > e

interpretation supersede Mommsen's conjecture l.c. p. 342; Riccobono, Annali del Sem. giurtax
Aoyuom'EKKArjCTias (Berichteuber die Verhandlungen -della R. Univ. di Palermo, xv, 1936, p. 378* StracK,
 V E H I C L E O F AUCTORITAS: TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS 447
1 2
agendi cum populo —which, also by his auctoritas introduced similar executive measures
into the comitia—thought o f as a part o f his tribunicia potestasJ This explains perfectly
the emphasis laid upon this power b y official aes: the immediate cause o f such coinage
was a senatus consultum on a motion of the princeps, and its ultimate basis his tribunician
power which enabled this motion to be made.
The existence o f this executive machinery is relevant to a difficult numismatic
problem from the principate o f Tiberius. W i t h the exception o f small groups at the
4
beginning and end* of his principate, his only Roman aes w i t h tribunician dates is that
with T R . P . X X I I I I . ( A . D . 22-23). This last category includes a multiplicity of types.
6 7

It may or may not be considered curious that there should have been 'a period o f
8
intense coinage, followed b y a complete lull o f twelve years', but suspicions are
justly aroused when the individual types are examined: Mattingly and Sydenham are
agreed that a number o f them refer to events later than A . D . 22-23. Sutherland? has
summarised their arguments, b y which certain types should be reassigned to A . D . 29
and 31. His only valid reason for rejecting these reattributions is the apparently in-
10

explicable persistence, on new issues and new dies, o f the date T R . P . X X I I I I . , which
refers to 22-23 alone." But the present interpretation of the tribunician power suggests

Footnotes continued from previous page. 7

The present writer hopes to make a study of
Auf dem Wege \um nationalpolitischen Gymnasium, this period, which stands in need of a drastic
vi, 1938, p. 8. Mommsen, St. R. n\ p. 898, reconsideration.
Andersen, Neue Deutsche Forschungen, cxcvi, 1938, BMC Ti. p. cxxxii. 8

p. 29 n. 72 do not differentiate between this ius and 9 JRS. XXVIII, 1938, pp. 131 f.
a Schriftliche Antragstellung, but the title of the I.e. the S.P.Q.R. Iuliae Augustae {Carpentum)
10

former indicates that verbal motions need not be and Salus Augusta types respectively. A third
excluded from its competence (prationes principis, argument based on the dementia type is shown to
Biondi, CA. p. 160). be inapplicable by Sutherland in his very satis-
Apparently in the next year, Dio LIV, 3. 3.
14
factory reinterpretation of that type (l.c. pp. i36ff.).
But it is noteworthy that the Pietas type is copied
Cf. Arangio-Ruiz, Augustus (1938), p. 127; by aes of Caesaraugusta in the praefectura i.d. of
1

Hammond, Memoirs of the American Academy in C. Caesar (Caligula) (Hill, p. 92; BM), which
Rome, xv, 1938, p. 24; and below, p. 452 n. 4. can scarcely have occurred before 29 and so suggests
* E.g. Ed. Cyr. HI (SEG. ix, 1938, p. 13) Kara a prototype later than 23.
v6uov TWI luwt hriKpfuorn. Ibid. p. 132. He adds that the carpentum need
11

Cf. von Premerstein, p. 184; de Francisci, not be posthumous, since it was permitted to
3

Augustus (1938), . 82 n. 3. The princeps activity in Messalina (Dio L X , 22; Suet. Claud. 17) and
p
1

mis respect was given retrospective validity also by Agrippina jun. (Dio L X , 33; Tac. Ann. xn, 42) in
e nght to exercise intercessio against senatus con- their lifetimes: but the usage of the Claudian divina
j remerstein, pp. 221, 280; Greenidge,
: v o n p
domus (cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 498) cannot
C 3 4 ( 5 ,
** P ' For earlier mediums of these powers, see be compared with that of Tiberius, who was very
PP- 450, 452. careful in these matters. Indeed, apart from the
l l " « & C
5 Ibid. 210 ff.
T L
honour to Livia here recorded, even posthumous
awards of a carpentum are not attested until
ff ( i b i d I2 f
ejects t In * * 9 *>
V r ^ * S TR. P. X X I I I . from the Caligula (to Agrippina sen., Suet. Cal. 15; cf.
l e g e d r e a d i n

"7 and Thomsen collections. Abaecherli, Bollettino dell* Associa^ione Inter-

448 R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B.C.—A.D. 14
a complete explanation o f this phenomenon on new lines. The invariable presence of
the formula S. C. on these issues indicates that their ultimate source was a senatus
consultum. This confirmed a motion auctoritate principis, which the princeps was
enabled to propose by virtue o f his tribunician power. A l l the groups w i t h T R . p #

X X I I I I . were derived from a single senatus consultum, which was moved by the
princeps and passed i n A . D . 22-23: only that tribunician year, therefore, is relevant to
the various types, including those as late as 29 and 31—since all were issued, i n the last
resort, by virtue o f the princeps tribunician power during its twenty-fourth year.
Thus an obstacle is overcome, and further evidence is obtained for the close connection
o f the formulae Senatus Consulto—Caesaris Auctoritate—Tribunicia Potestate.
Thus too the significance attached to tribunicia potestas is no longer surprising. The
auctoritas o f the princeps was the executive basis o f rule, and i t was habitually applied
through the medium o f a senatus consultum. So that the potestas, which made this
1

application possible, was the power on which depended practically the entire machinery
o f the Imperial administration. Scholars have endeavoured to explain away the im-
2
portance which was attached to this power; but its importance was not only real, but
paramount. Only its executive application can account for its bestowal as the principal,
4
sign of vicegerency,^ its supersession o f the consulship i n * regnal* chronometry as the
primary title o f the principate, and its exceptional twofold mention i n the Res Gestae.^
5

W i t h o u t the tribunicia potestas the Imperial organism, depending upon the interplay of
princeps and senate, would have been static. Descriptive phrases o f Tacitus and Vopis-
cus, summi fastigii vocabulum 1
and pars maxima regalis imperii? can only be explained
by this administrative competence. The same words throw light on a neglected but
characteristic piece o f constitutional hypocrisy. I t must have been clear that this com-
petence supplied a control over the senate and Empire which was practically monarchic.
But the tribunicia potestas possessed other elements o f less practical significance,
including the ius auxilii? Another Tacitean sneer reveals that this popular function

naiionale degli Studi Mediterranei, vi, 1935-6, p. 5). Velleius, ix, 99; cf. Hammond (Principate), l.c;
3

Nor is it possible to base arguments on the frequency Andersen, l.c. p. 39.

of breaks in the coinage at other times or on the Stobbe, Philologus, X X X I I , 1873, pp. 1ff.;cf.
4

correct dating of other issues: it has never been Mattingly, JRS. 1930, pp. 78 ff.; Hammond,
asserted that Roman aes appeared at regular inter- Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, xv,
vals or followed an unbroken line of development. 1938, p. 24; Salmon, History of the Roman World
1
See above, p. 445. 0944)> P- - l 6

2
E.g. Hammond, p. 79'sentimental associations 5 RG. 15, Tac. Ann. 1, 9, etc.; cf. Hammond
rather than...practical usefulness*; id. Memoirs of (Principate), p. 246 n. 14, etc.
the American Academy in Rome, xv, 1938, p. 24 Weber, Princeps, 1, p. 163; Kolbe, GGA. I939>
6

'how much this power enlarged the emperor's p. 157.

competence is open to dispute'; cf. Ferrero, The 7 Ann. m, 56.
Greatness andDecline ofRome,lv,p. 242; Greenidge, Historia Augusta, Vita Taciti, 1, 5.
8
,
Roman Public Life, p. 346 'an artificial prominence'. 9 Cf. Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 121; Hammon ,
Syme, RR. p. 337, calls it 'elusive'. p. 1?; Sherwin-White, p. 215.
 VEHICLE O F AUCTORITAS: TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS 449

was given publicity as the raison d'etre o f the tribunician power: the princeps is repre-
1

sented as se ferens. .ad tuendam plebem trihunicio iure contentum. The summi fastigii
7.

vocabulum really owed its pre-eminence, as Tacitus knew perfectly well, not to
humanitarian benevolence, but to the means which i t provided for influencing the
senate. A motion before this body supported b y the auctoritas principis could not fail
3

4
to be passed, as Cn. Piso unkindly hinted to Tiberius.
So the tribunician power was the link whichpermitted the administrative collaboration
of the auctoritas o f princeps and senate.* This view o f its substance and pretext enables
the vexed problem o f its chronological development to be attacked from a new angle.
6
Since i t was only i n its thirty-seventh year at the death o f Augustus, i t must date i n its
final form from 23 B . C . ; 7 on the other hand, the apparently independent testimony o f no
less than three authors w h o record its conferment i n 36 B . C . is hardly controvertible.
8 9

It is therefore unhelpful to ascribe to yet a third date, 30 B . C . , to which D i o assigns a

minor adjustment, the final vote o f the full potestas. T o escape from the impasse
10

created by the evidence o f 36 and 23, a hypothetical abandonment i n c. 28-27 has been
suggested." Kahrstedt has since pointed out the improbability o f this theory." The
scheme which he substitutes for i t is as follows. There was a complete and lifelong grant
in 36 for Rome; i n 30, as D i o says, its validity was widened to the radius o f one mile
beyond thepomoerium; i n 23 i t was extended to the whole Empire. Unfortunately this
Cf. Levi, Rivista difilologia, 1935, p. 404.
1
Augustus and the senate were not 'co-rulers' but
* Ann. 1, 2; cf. Grimm, Zapiski S. Peterburgskago ' co-administrators'.
Univ. LV, 1900, p. 103; Zmigryder-Konopka, VIHe 6
Tac. Ann. 1, 9; RG. 4.
Congres international des sciences historiques, 1938,1, Cf. Lengle, Neue Wege \ur Antike, xi, 1934,
7

p. 27. p. 75, etc.

3
This is substantially the view taken—without
8
Dio XLIX, 15. 5; Appian, v, 132; Orosius iv,
the evidence of the coins—by Strack, l.c. p. 8. There 18. 34.
is now no reason to reject the theory—albeit un- 9 Kahrstedt, GGA. 1938, p. 22; cf. Mommsen,
proved—of Andersen (l.c. p. 39) that lectiones RGDA. pp. 44 f.; Pelham, Essays, p. 73; Gardt-
senatus were also authorised by this potestas, sincehausen, pp. 468,727; Fitzler-Seeck, PJV. x, pp. 230,
Augustus expressly ascribes (RG. 6) to the tr. p. 337; von Premerstein, pp. 262ff.,etc.
1 0
measures which might have been carried out by a As Kornemann, Mausoleum und Tatenbericht
cura legum morumque (cf. Strack, I.e. p. 20; pace von des Augustus, pp. 48 ff; Stobart, CQ. 11, pp. 302 f.;
Premerstein, pp. 149 f.). It was characteristic of Haverfield, JRS. 11, 1912, p. 197; Malcovati, Atti
Augustus to employ a decree of the senate (Caesaris del IV Congresso di Studi Romani, I (1938), p. 562,
auctoritate) for the reform of that body itself. corrected e.g. by von Premerstein, Kahrstedt, ll.ee;
Tac. Ann. 1. 74.
4
Hammond, Memoirs of the American Academy in
Arangio-Ruiz (Storia del diritto romano, 1937,Rome, xv, 1938, p. 24.
5

PP. 208 f.) sees that there was no 'dyarchy', but a

1 1
As Fitzler-Seeck, PW. x, 342; Gelzer, ibid,
dualism of regimes': there is much truth in his xix, 348; von Premerstein, I.e.; Piganiol, Journal
comparison of the relationship of princeps to des Savants, 1937, p. 157; Anderson, JRS. 1939,
"spublica^ with that of Rome to civitates foederatae,p. 97.
°J of Philip of Macedon to the Greek city-states, " GGA. 1938, pp. 22ff.;cf. Hohl, Klio, 1939,
^ornemann (Einleitung in die Altertumwissenschaft, p. 68 n. 1.
n
> > 1933, pp. 71-73) thus rightly points out that
2
45o R U L E B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B . C . - A . D . 14

solution raises greater difficulties than i t solves:—(i) Dio's statement concerning 36 1

emphasises sacrosanctity, and his addition KCCI y d p ETTI TCOV CCUTCOV pdOpcov OV/KGC-
2
O^eoOai acpio-iv eAape is, as Adcock sees, only 'the obvious way o f marking this* i n
public; there can, then, be no reason for dissociating this reform from the closely
following grant to Octavia and Livia (35 B.C.), where sacrosanctity alone is mentioned
4
by Dio^ and alone is possible. Moreover, for what i t is worth, Octavian's first assump-
tion o f tribunician power is likely to have been on the lines o f Caesar's, which ( i f he
5 6
had one ) cannot have included more than sacrosanctity and perhaps a few honorary
privileges. (2) The interpretation o f the adjustment o f 30 as a geographical enlarge-
7

ment (but nothing more), b y way o f an unentbehrlicher Pra\eden{fall* is unparalleled

and unplausible. (3) * Extension to the whole Empire' is a strongly suspect idea as
applied to the tribunician power, whose direct validity could never have extended
beyond the citizenry 9 and whose principal application, as has been shown, was limited
to the senate-house. Thus peregrine city-coinages ignore the power completely, and
other numismatic references from the provinces refer almost exclusively to its con-
nection w i t h senatus consulta. (4) T h e ' extension' fails to explain the commencement of
official tribunician dating i n 23. There is, indeed, ample evidence that 23, not 36, was
10

the decisive year. The principal exercise o f the potestas i n the principate was to permit
consultation o f the senate, and i t was this which caused the administrative combination
T R . P . - C . A . - S . C. But unt>l 23 this ius senatus consulendi was held b y the princeps
from quite other sources—the Lex Titia at first, and then the consulship, b y which
11

for example he rose (or wrote) to propose the refoundation o f Apamea i n 28-27."

1
X L I X , 15.5. 2
CAH. ix, p. 901. perfect. For further discussion Rice Holmes, The
3 XLIX, 38.1. Roman Republic, m, pp. 514 ff. It may be noted
4
Cf. Adcock, I.e.; Andersen, l.c. p. 28; Hohl, that this power circumvented the ineligibility of
Klio, 1939, p. 70. It is shown by Messina-Vitrano, patricians for the tribunate; cf. Hammond, Memoirs
Studi Brugi, that other honours to Imperial ladies of the American Academy in Rome, xv, 1938, p. 23.
(e.g. Ulp. Dig. 1, 3. 31) are of much later date. Kahrstedt, l.c. p. 23.
8

5 It is rejected by Hohl, Klio, 1939, pp. 72 f. as 9 Even the provincial citizens were only con-
a retrospective misunderstanding by Dio of sacro- cerned directly in so far as they could benefit by the
sanctitas derived from an oath of 44 (cf. von ius provocations: cf. Sherwin-White, p. 215. The
Premerstein, pp. 39 f.). de facto extension of this right to peregrini was
6
Adcock, l.c. p. 900; pace Wiegand, Jahres- juristically nothing to do with this potestas; such
bericht des Koniglichen Gymnasiums \u Dresden-appeals were merely made to Augustus's supreme
Neustadt, 1898; Levi, Atti del primo Congresso diauctoritas.
Studi romani, 1, 1929, pp. 353 ff. For sacrosanctity Tac. Ann. 1, 9.
1 0

see Groh, Memoires de la Sociitt Royale des Sciences " In the same way Caesar, as dictator, had pos-
de Boheme, 1922-3, p. 5; Lange, Kleine Schriften, 11,sessed the right of prima relatio (Dio XLIII, I4«5)
#

pp. 545 ff.; Rouyard, Revue des itudes latines, iv, " See p. 257. As consul he had also possessed
1926, pp. 218 ff: the kindred ius senatus conferendi (Varro,
7 Vide Andersen, l.c. pp. 26 f., who points out Gell. NA. xiv, 7)—another power reconferred (in
that interpretations must vary according as lAcc^e 22) (Dio Liy, 3. 3), probably also as part of the
(Dio XLIV, 4. 2) is translated as an Aorist or a Plu- tribunicia potestas. But see also pp. 446 n. i4> 45 *'*
2n
 V E H I C L E O F AUCTORITAS: TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS 451

Until those had expired, therefore, he did not need this pre-eminent manifestation o f
the tribunician power. Finally, i t can hardly be accidental that a highly important
product o f the nexus T R . P.-C. A . - S . C , the aes coinage, obtained its principal
expression by the reopening o f the long dormant Roman mint i n the very same year o f
23. Every indication points to the institution o f tribunicia potestas, i n its vital ad-
1

ministrative sense, i n that year: its chronological use from then onwards marks the
2
definite establishment o f the new era.
This must not however be taken to imply rejection o f Dio's statements that Octavian
received the' tribunician power' i n 36 and 30, as Julius had before him. The dissociation
of power from office was a new principle, and the tribuniciapotestas a new thing: i t is
3

not to be supposed that its possessor at once performed all the functions o f a tribune
any more than the holders o f the censoriapotestas i n 28 performed all the functions o f a
censor. The tribunician power was, to use an athletic metaphor, a useful store o f
'bisques', which could be claimed when necessary. Each new function i t adopted
gave it a new meaning. The raison d'etre o f its conferments i n 44 (?), 36 and 35 was its
4

inherent sacrosanctitas: Augustus himself distinguishes between such conferments and

the power i n its final form i n 23.5 As the cause o f the adjustment i n 30 D i o empha-
sises the recognition, within a specified radius, o f ius auxilii. This was no doubt
6

dormant i n the undefined grant o f 36; but—especially since i t was a popular function—
it was tactful before its exercise to have the senate confirm i t (together w i t h the
earlier measure). Thus D i o is not completely w r o n g when he describes the contents
of the vote o f 30 as T ^ V Te e^oucriocv TT\V TCOV 8rj|icxpxcov 8icc |3iov §x - Only, this
Elv 7

was not understood i n the same way as after the inauguration o f the collaborative
regime in 23; and until then the potentialities o f the tribunician power were still com-
paratively little utilised. But the abandonment o f the consulship by the princeps
8

was part o f a long-cherished plan,? and equally this final system, based on the ius
senatus consulendi, had long been i n his mind. Both the grant o f 36 and the first con-
firmation of 30 occurred at times when the loss o f a constitutional means of influencing
the senate was envisaged as a possibility. I n 36, the title Imperator ceases temporarily to
be emphasised, since the triumviral imperium, renewed w i t h dubious justification, had
been still further illegalised by the elimination o f one o f the partners, Lepidus; in 30,
10

the imperium maius was limited to the duration o f the war and was to be abandoned at
the forthcoming t r i u m p h . " These coincidences w i t h the initial grants o f tribunicia

1
See p. 91. 4 Cf. Hohl, Klio, 1939, pp. 72 f., for the mis-
Its successful inauguration was fatal to the understandings which this caused in retrospect,
hopes of those who wanted a real as opposed to a 5 Ibid. p. 74 (RG. 10).
collaborative' Republic: there is therefore much 6
LI, 19; cf. Andersen, l.c. p. 28; de Francisci,
interest in the suggestion of McDermott (CIV. 1938, Augustus (1938), p. 68. 7 Ibid.
P« 43) that the new tribunicia potestas provoked the 8
Cf. Syme, RR. p. 308 n. 1.
conspiracy of A. Terentius Varro Murena. * Velleius II, 89—cum saepe obnitens repugnasset.
^ PP- 437 f. n. 2. 1 0
See pp. 46, 417 n. 9. 1 1
See p. 421.
452 RULE B Y AUCTORITAS PRINCIPIS, 27 B . C — A . D . 14

potestas are indications that its administrative use was never far from the thoughts
o f the princeps. Again, the final abandonment o f imperium maius was very shortly
preceded by the conferment o f an office which could include the ius senatus consulendi,
namely the principatus senatus (28 B . C . ) . This conferment was a precaution against a
1

later abandonment o f the consulship, and against the consequent hiatus before the
2
necessary adjustment o f the tribunician power could be made: thus i t bridged the
transition between the military and civil administrations, the new era and the o l d . The
long postponement o f the final tribunicia potestas was necessitated b y wars, crises,
illnesses, preparations; meanwhile, the preliminary grants o f 36 and 30, which envisaged
i t , could easily be justified, the first b y inheritance from Julius, and the second b y the
popular appeal o f the ius auxilii.
Thus whereas the chief constitutional change o f the epoch, the abolition o f control
based on imperium, took place i n 27, i t was the year 23 which after a series o f tentative
enactments witnessed the inauguration o f the civilian executive machinery o f the
3
principate, whose most important manifestation is summed up i n the triple formula
tribunicia potestate—Caesaris auctoritate—senatus consulto.* W i t h o u t recourse to the
martial law o f an imperium or to the /?r//Ktf/v-magistracy' implied b y v o n Premerstein Y
conception o f the legalised cura et tutela universal the interaction o f these three elements

1
RG. 7; cf. Piganiol, Journal des Savants, 1937, that of the ius senatus consulendi. It is possible to
p. 161; for lack of connection with title princeps, cf. make a general distinction between the functions of
Charlesworth, CAH. x, p. 612 n. 1; Stuart Jones, the two iura as interpreted by Augustus: senatus
ibid. p. 132; Gwosdz, Der Begriff des romischen consulta comprehended such day-by-day admini-
* Princeps*, Diss. Breslau, 1933, p. 49; von Pre- strative processes as the coinage, and leges were de-
merstein, p. 22 n. 1; pace Sihler, Studies in Honor of voted to more fundamental and infrequent measures
Gildersleeve, pp. 77 ff. For the prima relatio of theof reform. Cf. Buckland, CAH. xi, p. 814.
princeps senatus, cf. Greenidge, Roman Public "Life, Pp. 117 ff.; cf. Volkmann, Forschungen und
5

p. 269; cf. von Premerstein, p. 220 n. 4. But in 23 Fortschritte, 13, xxx, 1938, pp. 349 f.; id. Jahr-
such rights were thought of as part of the tribunicia biicher fiir Antike und deutsche Bildung, I , 1938,
potestas (p. 446). pp. 16ff.The same idea was suggested in part by
2
The length of the interval which actually Grimm, Zapiski S. Peterburgskago Univ. LV, 1900,
occurred in 23 is thought to be short by Hammond, p. 165; Petri, Jahrbiicher fiir Wissenschaft und
Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, X V ,Jugendbildung, 1927, pp. 268 ff., and has been
1938, p. 24. modified farther south to provide a dux—e.g. by
3 Hohl, Klio, 1939, p. 74, for other reasons, Levi, Rendiconti delR. 1st. Lombardo, LXXI, i n , *>
recognises the grant of tribunicia potestas in this year1938, p. 114. Von Premerstein postulates the senate s
as the vital moment of the principate. confirmation for this general commission: he is not
4
This year also, presumably, initiated the second content with a permanent imperium maius and a legal-
element by which tribunicia potestas was the vehicleised auctoritas (p. 426). Moreover, he implies and
of auctoritas principis, namely the ius agendi cumstates, on different pages, that each of these three
populo (e.g. ILS. 4966, e lege Iulia ex auctoritateformalisations was the chief basis of the principate.
Aug., cf. von Premerstein, p. 223; Arangio-Ruiz, They are, in this role, hopelessly incompatibte,
Augustus, p. 127; de Francisci, ibid. p. 82; Ed. Cyr. since approximately the same administrative tas
3). Its inclusion in the potestas is no less likely than are allotted to each. It has been shown that an
 VEHICLE OF AUCTORITAS: TRIBUNICIA POTESTAS 453

solved i n an unobtrusive manner the administrative problems o f the ruler, by per-

mitting the exercise o f his unique auctoritas (informal still) w i t h i n the Republican con-
stitution. Its necessity was only diminished by the reform i n A . D . 13 o f the consilium
principis, which now could authorise Q. Silanus to coin permissu Augusti without
reference to the senate and so without mention o f the tribunician power: auctoritas had
1

devolved from its aged possessor to a committee. But until then, the efficacy o f the
princeps as head o f the government depended upon the triple process, whose existence
and predominance i n the executive have been revealed by the aes coinage.

imperium maius did not exist, and that the auctoritas principis, in the moral light of an universal pro-
which took its place was not legalised (pp. 426,445): tectorship (cf. Klostermann, Philologus, LXXXVII,
the general cura et tutela has even less plausibility. 1932, pp. 358 ff.; Kahrstedt, l.c. p. 13): but he
Its inventor failed to explain its absence from the exercised this by virtue of his supreme auctoritas,
Res Gestae and the other ancient sources (cf. and through the intermediacy of the sovereign
Kahrstedt, GGA. 1938, p. 17), and, even if his work senate. The assumption of a legalised cura et tutela
had not been left unfinished (Volkmann, ap. von is completely alien to the spirit of this auctoritas—
Premerstein, p. iii), he could never have reconciled cf. McFayden, CW. 1938, p. 240; Kahrstedt, Kolbe,
it with auctoritas: the consecutive position of the ll.cc.; Kornemann, l.c. p. 566; Strack, Auf dem
chapters on the two topics shows only too clearly Wege ium nationalpolitischen Gymnasium, V I , 1938,
the utter anomaly of their joint existence (cf.— p. 6. For the non-existence of a cura legum morum-
independently—Syme, RR. p. 313 n. 1). They must que see Andersen, l.c. pp. 39 f., and for protests
be considered alternative solutions, between which against a similar legalisation of auctoritas, see above,
von Premerstein did not live to choose (similar p. 426. The whole idea of the cura et tutela is too
contradictions are pointed out by Kornemann, subjective: it is based on an anachronistic applica-
Gnomon, 1938, p. 563; Kolbe, GGA. 1939, p. 153). tion of specialised modern phenomena to ancient
We have'seen that auctoritas, though not yet a legal and different conditions (cf. Machkin, Vestnik
institution, possessed, indeed, no less importance Drevnei Istorii, 1,1938, p. 120). It does not deserve
than is allotted to it by von Premerstein. In fact, to be called 'an attractive view* (Anderson, JRS.
its importance was such that there is no room what- xxix, 1939, p. 95).
1
ever left for an officially recognised cura et tutela. Decisions of the consilium now had the validity
It is true that Augustus viewed his task, the statio of senatus consulta: cf. above, pp 128, 435.
 455

Appendices
•<<•>>-
Appendix 1

SUMMARY OF T H E OFFICIAL AES C O I N A G E S , 4 9 - 2 8 B.C.

(* signifies that it has been necessary to alter the current attribution, or to suggest a new one)

PROBABLE AVERAGE W E I G H T
MINT-AUTHORITY MINT DATE (to nearest grain or J grain)
A. Pomp. M. f. Vic. q. ad Utica* 48-46* c. 350 (Berlin, Copenhagen)
_ aerarium
Cn. Julius L . f. q. Corduba c. 47-46* quadrans c. 75
C. Clovius, praef. a. d. a. Mediolanum (?)* 45 232 (Willers)
et c. d*
P. Sulpicius Rufus pro pr* Amisus* 45* 218 (Istanbul)
Cn. Magnus Imp. Corduba 46-45 as c. 333 (BMC.)
Magnus Pius Imp. Corduba 45-44 as c. 333 (BMC.)
M. Eppius Leg. Corduba 45-44 as c. 267 (BMC.)
quaestor Thessalonica(?) 45-44* 347-319, i3 '5-i03*5, c 58
6

(Gaebler)
L. Ap. Dec. q. ad aerarium* Urso c. 44* c. 512, 303, 200 (BM)
L. Ap. Dec. q. ad aerarium* Myrtilis c. 44* c. 240 (Copenhagen), 105 (BM)
L. Ap. Dec. q. ad aerarium* Baelo c. 44* c. 83 (BM)
L. Ap. Dec. q. ad aerarium* Lilybaeum c. 44-42* c. i oo* 5
Q. Hortensi. pro cos. praef. Thessalonica 43-42 231 (Berlin), 221-5 ( ) B M

c.J*
P. Lepidus pro q. pro pr.,* Cnossus 43-42 56-41 (BMC.)
P. Licinius pro q.
L. Juni. Leg., Hispanorum Panormus c. 43-42 c. 116 (Berlin)
[L. Juni Leg.], Hispanorum Syracuse c. 43-42 c. 95 (Berlin etc.)
L. Scribonius Libo Agrigentum* c. 43-36 c. 22-5
C. Allius Bala Agrigentum* c. 43-36 c. 31
L. Cnorius(?)* Agrigentum* c. 43-36 c. 42
L.Q. Agrigentum* c. 43-3°* - 45
c

Q. Annius Lilybaeum* c. 43-36 c. 80-5

L. Atratinus augur Brundusium(?)* 39 c. 209
C. Sosius q. Zacynthus ^9-38 c. 99 (BMC.)
C. Sosius cos. Zacynthus 32 31-5 (BMC.)
Caesar Arelate(?)* 39-38* c. 250
Crassipes Lilybaeum* c. 38-37* c. 96
Agrigentum* c. 38-37* C.65P)
L. Bibulus pr. desig. Tarentum (?)* 37* as c. 91-5 (Bahrfeldt)
L. Atratinus cos. desig. Tarentum (?)* 37-36* c. 68
45<$ APPENDIX 1
PROBABLE AVERAGE W E I G H T
MINT-AUTHORITY MINT DATE (to nearest grain or £ grain)
M. Oppius Capito pro pr. Tarentum (?)* 37-36* c. 68
praef. cl.
M. Agrippa cos. praef. cl. Puteoli(?)* 37* W 5 (BM)
Divi f. Puteoli(?)* 37* c. 282 (Sydenham)
Caesar divi f. Puteoli(?)* 37* c. 278 (Sydenham)
[Lepidus],* Divos Julius Carthage (?)* 37-36* 143 (Copenhagen)
C. Sosius imp. Zacynthus 37-36 70 (BMC.)
Cn. Piso Frugi Sicilian port* 37-36* 357 (Pesaro)
Q. B. Lilybaeum* 37-36 c. 115*5
Q-.B. Agrigentum* 37-36 0 109*5
M. Oppius Capito Lipara* 37-36 c. 79*5
L . Caecina(?)* Lipara* 37~35* c. 47
P. Cornelius [Dolabella(?)]* Lipara* 37—35* c. 85
[Carsidius(?)] Sacerdos* Lipara* 37—35* c. 52
P. Calpurnius Lipara* 37—35* —
M. Aufidius Scaeva Lipara* 37—35* —
Sex. Annius Lipara* 37—35* c. 104
L . Annius Lipara* 37—35* quadrans z. 18
P. Annius Lipara* 37—35* quadrans^ c. 29*5
Dec. Porcius Lipara* 37-35* c. 55
P. Al[fenus Varus?]* Lipara* 37-35 —
T. Statilius [Taurus pro cos.]*, Lipara* c. 36-35* —
Trebonius q.
[T. Statilius Taurus] imp. Lipara* c. 36-35 —
Cap. Lipara* c. 36-35 —
[Caesar], Victoria Agrigentum (?)* c. 36 —
C. Arruntanus Balbus pro pr. Melita* c. 36-31* —
C. Sosius cos. desig. Zacynthus 36-34 J
59> 5 86%
(BMC.)
[M. Licinius] Crassus* Cnossus (?) c. 36* —
[M. Licinius] Crassus* Ptolemais c. 36* 204*5 (Vienna)
[M. Licinius] Crassus* Cyrene c. 36* c. 45 (BMC.)
L. Lollius Cyrene c. 35*1 355-293, i85"i39> 7 7 - ° > 5
L. Lollius Cnossus (?) c. 35*1 (BMC.)
Imp. Caesar divi f. [praef. Iol(?)* *33*
c
373, c 112 (Copenhagen)
c. d.]*
C. Sosius cos. Zacynthus 32 31*5 (BMC.)
Q. Oppius pro cos.* Antioch(?)* c. 32-31* 202*5 (Willers)
Q. Oppius pro cos* Laodicea(?)* c. 32-31* c. 182 (Lafrranchi)
ANT03. YTTA. T. Patrae(?)* 32-31 238-138, 85-62 (Svoronos)
C. Proculeius [procurator*] Cephallenia(?) c. 30-28* 43*5 (Munich)
C. Proculeius [procurator*] Ithaca* c. 30-28* c. 91*5,30*1 (BM)
[C. Cornelius Gallus, praef. Alexandria 30-27 265*5, 128 (Milne)
Alexandriae et Aegypti]
A. Pupius Riifus q. propr. Cyrene c. 30-27 202,95 (BM)
quaestors Melita (?) c. 30-27* 93-32,31-20 (Bahrfeldt)
Divo Iulio [Thorius Balbus Apamea* c 28-27* —
pro cos.] (? genuine)
Imp. Divi f. (I. i ) Nemausus c. 28-27 c. 270 (Willers)
 457
Appendix 2

SUMMARY O F T H E O F F I C I A L AES C O I N A G E S , 27 B.C.-A.D. 1 4

MINT-AUTHORITY PROBABLE M I N T DATE

Imp. Caesar divi f. Augustus Paphos B. C. 27
M. Acilius Glabrio pro cos. Byzacenian mint* *5
[M. Primus pro cos. (?)]* Thessalonica (?)* 24-23
tresviri a. a. a.f.f., SC Italian mints* 23-c. 6
P. Carisius leg. Aug. Emerita 23-22
[Lollius (?)] Palikanus pro cos. Cyrene c. 23-15
praefecti Alexandriae et Aegypti Alexandria C. B.C. 23-A.D. 14
A. Plautius pro cos. Paphos, Salamis(?) C. 22
Imp. Aug. divi f. Lusitania(?) c. 22-19
SC Ionia (?) c. 21-19
Regulus leg. Agrippae Sidon(?)* c. 19
Imp. Aug. divi f. Baetica c. 19-16
SC Antioch C. B.C. 17-A.D. 14
CA, Augustus, Imp. Ephesus, Pergamum "I C. B.C. 17-
August, tr. pot. 3 Syrian & 3 Balkan mints(?)*J
Aug. (colonist) Parium, Syria, \ c. 17-
Bithynia, Paphlagonia(?)*J
Augustus (capricorn) Parium c. 17
SC, August. Paphos c. 15
Capito q. pro pr. Cyrene c. 15
Augustus.. .Imp. X. Gallic tribe c. 15-13
Imp. Divi f. (IB) Nemausus c. 15-8*
Scato pro cos. Cyrene, Cnossus(?) c. 13-12
Imp. Caesar Augustus divi f. Lugdunum (?) c. 10
SC Damascus (?)* c. io(?)
Q. Am. Quinti. pro cos. Paphos C 2(?)
Caesar Pont. Max. Lugdunum c.8-6
Augustus *r» pot. XVII. im... Hadrumetum 7-6
P. Quinctilius Varus leg. Aug. Berytus C. B.C. 7-4
Africanus Fabius Maximus pro cos.} Hadrumetum
L. Livinejus Gallus q. pro pr. f c. 6-5
quattuorviri a. a. a.f.f., SC Rome
SC,SC Castulo mine C. 6-4
August. Trib. Pot. Pont. Max. Paphos }
Caesar August. Pat. Patr. Paphos C. B.C. 5-A.D. 4
Imp. Caesar Augustus Lugdunum (?) C. B.C. 2-A.D. 4
L. Passienus Rufus imp. Africa C. A.D. 2-14
procuratores Aue. Caesarea Samariae C. A.D. 3
SC Italian mints 6-12
Caesar Augustus divi f. Pater Patriae Lugdunum c. 10-14
Imp. Caesar divi f. Augustus P. P. Africa c. 10-14
Laodicea in Syria (?) c. 10-14
Q. Creticus Silanus leg. Aug., p. Aug. Berytus c. 10-14 (?)
Granius Marcellus pro cos. Apamea in Bithynia c. 13-14
14
458

Appendix 3

PROPOSED ADDITIONS A N D ALTERATIONS TO LISTS

OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNORS

Hispania Ulterior M. Licinius Crassus c. 36-34.

T. Manlius T . f. Torquatus Sergianus leg. c. 45- Palikanus pro cos. c. 23-17.
41 B.C. P. Sulpicius Quirinius pro cos. (Capito q. pro p ^ r

C. Livius leg. 40 B X . c. 15.

Scato pro cos. c. 13-12.
Hispania Citerior Q. Lucanius Proculus pro cos. c. 12-9.
M. Sempronius Rutilus leg. (?) —pro cos. Africae (M. Tillius Sex. f. q.pro pr.) c. 9-8.
Sex. Peducaeus leg. 40 B.C. P. Quinctilius Varus (?) pro cos. Africae (—q. pro
pr.) c. 8-7.
Sardinia L . Volusius Saturninus pro cos. Africae (P. Sextius
M. Atius Balbus jun. c. 38 B.C. Scaeva q. pro pr.) c. 7-6.
Africanus Fabius Maximus pro cos. Africae (Q.
Sicily Livineius Gallus q. pro pr.) c. 6-5.
L . Junius leg. c. 43-40 B.C.
Asia
L . Scribonius Libo leg. c. 43-40.
C. Caninius Rebilus leg. c. 42-37. M. Sempronius Rutilus pro cos. early 43.
Cn. Calpurnius Piso Frugi leg. c. 37-36. M. Turius leg. 42-41/0 B . C
L . Mussidius pro cos. 21-20. Asinius Marrucinus pro cos. c. 35—34.
Cornelius (?) Sisenna pro cos. c. 20-12 B.C. M. Herennius Picens pro cos. c. 33-32.
Q. Terentius Culleo pro cos. c. 12 B.C.-A.D. 14. T. Octavius pro cos. c. 32-31.
L . Clodius Rufus pro cos. c. 2 B . C - A . D , 14. P. Vedius Pollio procurator et praeses 31-29.
L . Seius pro cos. c. 12-14. M. Tullius Cicero pro cos. 29-28.
[P. F . Silva pro cos. c. 14-19.] Agrippa leg. (Silanus(?) leg.) 18-13.

Macedonia-Achaia Pontus et Bithynia

Q. Paquius Rufus leg. 42-41 B . C P. Sulpicius Rufus pro pr., then pro cos. 46-45 B.C.
L . Sempronius Atratinus leg. 38-37. M. Licinius Crassus pro cos. after 35.
T. Octavius leg. (?) c. 33-32. Thorius Flaccus pro cos. 29-28.
Agrippa leg. (legati) 18-13. Ap. Claudius Pulcher pro cos. 28-27. •
Agrippa leg. 18-13.
Achaia
C. Proculeius procurator et praeses c. 30-28. Galatia
Agrippa leg. (Mescinius leg.) 18-13.
Agrippa leg. 18-13.
Creta
Q. Caepio Brutus pro cos. (P. Lepidus P. f. pro q.) Syria-
43-42. Q. Oppius pro cos. c. 33/2-31/0 B.C.
Agrippa leg. (Q. Articuleius (?) Regukis leg.) 18-13*
Cyrenaica
Cyprus
Q. Caepio Brutus pro cos. (P. Licinius pro q.) 43-42.
A. Plautius pro cos. 22-21 B.C.
Creta et Cyrenaica Agrippa leg. 18-13.
L . Lollius c. 36-34. Q. Am. Quinti. pro cos. c. 2 B.C.-A.D. 14*
 459

Appendix 4

SUMMARY O F F O U N D A T I O N COINAGES

(An asterisk denotes that the reference is explicit)

I. Praefecti coloniis deducendis et agris dandis d. First magistrates called Augusti.
adsignandis (official coinage) Virres IHIvir Aug., at Thuburnica(?), c. 27-
12 B.C.
C. Clovius praef., in Cisalpine Gaul, c. 45 B.C.
M. Paccius Maximus Flamen Aug. Hvir Aug. des.,
* Q. Hortensius pr[o Q. Caepione Brutof] praef. colon.
at Halaesa, after c. 12 B.C.
dedu. [pro cos.], in Macedonia and Achaia, 43-42.
L. Junius leg. Siciliae, at Panormus and Syracusae, e. First colleges of magistrates.
'Hispanorum', c 43""4*. Sex. Antonius Athenio and C . Julius Dionysius
M. Licinius Crassus, at Cnossus, c. 36^-34. Ilviri, at Panormus, c 44-43 B.C.
A representative of Octavian, in Mauretania, c. 33. L . Munatius and L . Cestius Ilviri, at Henna,
c. 44-43.
II. Municipia
M. Cassius and M. Antonius, at Halaesa, c. 44-
a. Constitutors without adsignatores. 43-
*P. Sittius, at Simitthu (?), 44 B.C. Aristo and Mutumbal ben Ricoce suffetes, at
M. Atius Balbus patronus reipublicae, at Useiis, c. 38. Caralis, after c. 38.
Octavian, at Osca, c. 28. C. Marcius and L . Ausonius(?) Ilviri, at Lipara,
•Caesar [Augustus], at Zitha, after c. 19. c. 36.
Augustus, at Bilbilis, Ilerda and Italica, c. 15-14. Helvius Pollio and Albinus quinq. at Saguntum, 3

c. 29.
b. Adsignatores without constitutors.
C. Valerius and C . Sextius aed., at Calagurris, 4

A. Ambatus, at Zama Regia, c. 29-28 B.C. c. 28.

M. Agrippa cos. III. municipi patronus parens, at
f. Unsigned foundation-issues.
Gades, c. 19.
Emporiae, c. 40-39 B.C.
c. Constitutors with adsignatores. Assorus, c. 44-42.
Cossura, c. 44-42.
1
C. Caninius Rebilus and C . L . , at Cephaloedium,
c. 42-40 B.C. Agrigentum, c. 44-42.
L.M. and L.Q., at Messana (?), c. 42-40.
1
Tyndaris (?), c. 43-4*»
Rex Bocchus and Sosius L . f., at Tingis, c. 38. Lix, c. 38-25.
*C. Calvisius Sabinus imp. and Cn. Statius Libo, 1
Dertosa, c. 30-28.
at Saguntum, c. 29. Turiaso, c. 28.
Octavian and T. Statilius Taurus pro cos.Q), at 2

Calagurris, c. 28. g. Second issues from foundation fund.

Augustus and Cornelius (?) Sisenna pro cos., at C. Julius f. Longus Ilviri, at Panormus, c. 43-
Messana (?), c. 20-12. 42 B.C.
Augustus and Q. Terentius Culleo pro cos., at Caecilius Rufus Hvir, at Halaesa, c. 43~4i«
Lilybaeum, after c. 12 B.C. Cossura, c. 43-42.
Augustus and L . Clodius Rufus pro cos., at Gades, after c. 19.
Agrigentum, c. 2 B.C.-A.D. 14. Lilybaeum, after c. n .

I On separate coins. 3 With C . Calvisius Sabinus imp. constitutor (see

Represented by a bull, as a pun on his name(?). above).
« With Octavian and T. Statilius Taurus (?) (see above).
4&> APPENDIX 4
III. Colonies Q. Am. and P. C. Hviri, at Turris Libisonis
c. 42-40. 4

a. Deductores without adsignatores. C. Julius Tang, and C. Arri. A. f. Hviri, at Dyme,

*P. Sulpicius Q. f. Rufus pro cos., at Sinope, c. 45. c. 42-36 B.C.
* Q. Hortensius pro cos., at Cassandrea, c. 44-42. Cn. Octavius and M. Antonius Aristarchus Hviri
*M. Sempronius Rutilus pro cos., at Lystra, 43. at Dyme, c. 36-31.
P. Cosconius, at Cyrene, 42. Nonius and Sulpicius quinq., at Pella, 30.5
*M. Lurius, at Turris Libisonis, c. 42-40. P. Vibius sacerdos Caesaris and Q. Barbatiuspraef.,
*Q. Paquius Rufus leg., at Philippi and Dyrrha- M. Barbatius and M (?). Acilius Hviri, at Parium
chium, c. 42-40. 29.5
M. Turius leg., at Lampsacus, c. 42-40. Conductor and Malleolus quinq. , at Carthago
1

T. Statilius Taurus pro cos.(?), at Carthago Nova,

1
Nova, c. 29-28.
c. 29. L . Maecius and L . Appuleius quinq., at Ilici, c. 28.
Augustus at Emerita, c. 25-23. C. Cassius C. f. Ilvir, at Apamea, 27.5
Augustus at Caesaraugusta, c. 19. L . Manlius and T . Petronius Hviri, at Ilici,
c. 15-14. 5

h. Adsignatores without deductores.

C. Vibius and L . Pontius Hviri, at Berytus,
T. Statilius Taurus leg. pro pr. at Celsa, c. 44-42* c. 16-13.
M. Ius. and M. Herenn. Hviri quinq., at Dyrrha-
c. Deductores and adsignatores (duoviri col. ded.).
chium, c. 12-11.5
C. Car. and C . Cos., at Rhodes, 42 B.C.
Tadius -and Marius, at Melita, 42. f. Unsigned foundation-issues.
* L . Vene. and D. Fadius Epul., at Paestum, Corinth, c. 45-44 B.C. 6

c. 36-25. Lugdunum, 43.

Augustus and L . Mussidius pro cos., at Tyndaris Dium, 43-42.
and Syracuse, c. 21. Arausio(?), c. 33.

d. First magistrates called i

Augusti*. g. Second issues from foundation fund.
L . Junius and L . Acilius Hviri quin. Aug., at Q. Am. and L . C. Ve. Hviri, at Turris Libisonis,
Thermae Himeraeae(?), c. 27-12 B . C c. 41-40 B.C.
Q. Papirius Carbo and Q. Terentius Montanus
e. Other first magistrates. Hviri quinq., at Ilici, c. 14-13.
L. Nep. and L . Sura praef. pro JIviris at Celsa, Antioch in Pisidia, c. 20-10.
44-43 B . C 2

Mucius and Pic, T. Anicius and C. Matuinus h. Augustus as restitutor.

HHviri, at Parium, c. 42-41. * Pella, 30 B.c.
* Q. Lucretius and L . Pontius Hviri, at Lampsacus, Parium, 29.
c. 42-41. 3
* Apamea, 28-27.
Pe. or Ep. Ilvir, at Alexandria Troas, c. 42-41. Ilici, c. 15-14.
C. Fabius Catulus and D(?). Sextilius Cornutus * Dyrrhachium, c. 12-11 B . C
Hviri, at Hadrumetum, c. 42-40. •Philippi, c. 2 B.C—A.D. 6.

5
1
Represented by a bull, as a pun on his name(?). With Augustus restitutor (see below).
* With T. Statilius Taurus pro cos.Q) (see above). 6
This bears the head of Caesar, who was, however,
3
With M. Turius leg. deductor (see above). not the deductor.
4
With M. Lurius deductor (see above).
 461

Appendix 5

PROPOSED ADDITIONS A N DALTERATIONS TO LISTS

1
OF R O M A N F O U N D A T I O N S

Corduba, ded. 4<>-45 - *B c Dyrrhachium, ded. 42-41 B.C., rest. c. 16 B . C -

Buthrotum, ded. 45 B.C., rest. 10 B . C - A . D . 13. A.D. 6.
Sinope, ded. 45 B.C. Philippi, ded. 42-41 B.C., rest. c. 2 B.C.-A.D. 6.
Cisalpine Gaul communities, const. 45 B.C. Turris Libisonis, ded. 42-40 B.C.
Corinth, ded. 45~44 B . C Hadrumetum, ded. 42-40 B.C.
Emporiae, const. 45~44 B . C Apamea, ded. c. 42-40 B . C , rest. 28-27 B . C
Gades, oppidum c. R. 45~44 B.C. Dyme, ded. c. 42-36 B . C , rest. c. 36-31 B.C., rest.
Hippo Diarrhytus, ded. c. 47 B.C. c. 27-16 B . C , stip. from c. 16 B . C
Urso, ded. 44 B.C. Tauromenium, const, c. 41 B . C , ded. 36 B.C.
Myrtilis, const, or ded. 44-27 B.C. Pella, ded. 40 B . C , rest. 30 B.C. [rest, after A.D. 14.]
Simitthu, const. 44 B . C , ded. c. 5-4 B.C. ( ? ) Tingis, const. 38 B.C.
Celsa, ded. 44~43 B.C. Uselis, const, c. 38 B.C.
Panormus, const. 44-43 B.C., rest. c. 43-42 B.C., Cnossus, ded. c. 36 B.C.
stip. from 36 B.C., ded. c. A.D. 14-19. Paestum, [const. 90 B . C ] , ded. c. 36-28 B.C.
Syracuse, const. 44-43 B . C , rest. c. 43-42 B.C., Achulla, ded. c. 36-27 B.C.
stip. from 36 B.C. Thapsus, ded. c. 36-27 B.C.
Messana, const. 44-43 B.C., rest. c. 43-36 B.C., stip. Colonies in Eastern Mauretania, ded. c. 32 B.C.
from 36 B.C. Babba, ded. 33-32 B.C.
Melita, const. 44-43 B . C , ded. 42 B . C , stip. from Carthago Nova, ded. c. 29 B.C.
36 B.C. Zama Regia, const, c. 45-44 B.C.
Cephaloedium, const. 44-43 B . C . , * « 4 ~3^ B . C ,
R E S T C
2 Saguntum, const, c. 29 B.C.
stip. from 36 B.C. Zama Regia, const, c. 29 B.C. [ded. A.D. 117-138.]
Haluntium, const. 44-43 B.C., stip. from 36 B . C , Ilici, ded. c. 28 B.C., rest. 15-14 B.C.
const, c. A.D. 12-14. Calagurris, const, c. 28 B.C.
Lystra, ded. 43 B . C , stip. from 43-42 B.C., ded. Osca, const, c. 28 B.C.
c. 42-41 B.C. Turiaso, const, c. 28 B.C.
Dium, ded. 43-42 B.C. [rest, after c. A.D. 80.] Thuburnica, const, c. 27-12 B.C.
Cyrene, ded. 42 B.C., stip. from 42 B.C. Caesaraugusta, ded. c. 19 B.C.
Rhodes, ded. 42 B . C , peregrine from 42 B.C. Berytus, ded. 16-13 B.C.
Alexandria Troas, ded. c. 42-41 B . C , rest. c. 20 B.C. Bilbilis, const. 15-14 B.C.
Parium, ded. 42-41 B . C , rest 29 B.C. [rest. A.D. Ilerda, const. 15-14 B.C.
117-138.] Italica, const. 15-14 B . C
Lampsacus, ded. 42-41 B . C , stip. from 35 B.C. Zitha, const. 7 B.C.

ded.=deducta (colonia civium Romanorum), const. =constituta (municipium c. R.), rest.=restituta (colonia or
1

municipium c. R.) stip.=iure stipendiario.

t
462

Appendix 6

PROPOSED ADDITIONS A N D ALTERATIONS TO LISTS

1
OF P E R E G R I N E F O U N D A T I O N S

[Damascus, 311 B.C.] Aezanis, Heraclea Salbace, Dioshieron, Siblia, urb.

[Epiphaneia, 85.] c. 20-19.
Ilici, Latin c. 48. Adramyttium, Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Clazo-
Orthosia (Phoenicia), stip. 47. menae, Ephesus(?), Erythrae(?), Hierapolis,
Balanea, stip. 46. Apollonia Pontica, Odessus, stip. c. 20-19.
Leptis minor, lib. 45-44. Acmonia, stip. c. 20-15.
Myrtilis, Urso, Baelo, Latin 45-44. Hydrela, Apollonia Salbace, Assus, Bargytfa,
Carthago Nova, Latin c. 44. Miletus, Tenedus, stip. c. 20-5.
Antipolis, Latin 44-43. Apamea in Syria, stip. 15.
Brutobriga, Latin c. 42-41. Trapezopolis, urb. c. 15.
Eumenia, stip. c. 42-40, stip. c. 2 B . C - A . D . 14. Eucarpiticum, semi.-urb. c. 15.
Amorium, Philomelium, stip. c. 42-40. Prymnessus, Apamea in Phrygia, Euromus, Sardes,
Vesci, Latin c. 40-39. Elaea(?), stip. c. 15.
Thaena, stip. c. 36. Ercavica, Latin c. 15-14*
Demetrias, [87], stip. 31. Termessus and Oenoanda, synoecism, c. 15-5.
Gabala, Gadara, stip. 31. Segobriga, Latin c. 14-9.
Amphipolis, lib. c. 30. Cilbiani inferiores, urb. c. 14-2, tribe c. 2 B.C.-
Antioch, lib. 30. A.D. 14.
Ace, [i5<HL stip. 30. Oea, Leptis Magna, Sabrata, lib. c. 7-5 B.C.
Ilium, lib. c. 30-29. Colophon, Iasus, stip. c. 7 B.C.-A.D. 3.
Abydus, Dardanus, Laodicea (Phrygia), Smyrna, Cos, lib. c. 5 B.C.
Teos, stip. c. 30-29 (??). Thysdrus, [col. Jul.], stip. c. 2 B . C - A . D . 14.
Nicaea, Nicomedia, stip. c. 29-28. Antiochia ad Maeandrum, Tabae, c. 2 B . C - A . D . 14.
Segovia, Latin c. 29-28 (?) Abdera in Baetica, Latin c. A.D. 4-14 (?).
Segesta, Latin c. 27-15. Pergamum, stip. c. A.D. 10-14.
Sidon, [336], stip. 20, lib. c. 6. Scepsis, stip. c. A.D. 13-14.
1
Including reconstitution$ and promotions (slip. *=stipendiaria, lib.=libera, urb.=urbanization).
 463

Appendix 7

POSTHUMOUS LOCAL ISSUES W I T H HEADS OF AUGUSTUS

Shortly after Augustus* death, P i . X , 5, 9 o f Aezanis bear witness to a Tiberian prototype; a cameo in
1 3
the Cathedral Treasure at Aachen and the Torlonia Augustus*—recognised as Tiberian by Montini —
reveal the origin o f the conception. P i . X , 34 of Aphrodisias is of a style recalling the head of * young
4
Caligula (?)' on the Paris cameo. A n iconographic investigation of this kind adds the following to the
posthumous issues (whose existence is revealed by other arguments on pp. 328 ff.):

(1) T I B E R I U S . Asia: Abydus ( P i . X , i),5 Alabanda ( P i . X , 12), Assus, Clazomenae, Dioshieron 6

7 8

(Pi. X , i o ) , Ephesus, Heraclea Salbace, Hypaepa, Lampsacus ( P i . X , 3), Magnesia ad Sipylum(?)

9 10 11 12
13

(Pi. X , 7), Methymna,^ Miletus (Pi. X , 2), Philadelphia, Philomelium ( ? ) , Prymnessus ( P i . X , 11),
14 16
17 l S
19

Samos. Galatia: Aspendus, Sagalassus, Termessus minor.* Crete: Cydonia ( P i . X I I , 7).

20 21 22
Epirus: 3
24

Nicopolis (Pi. X I I , 5).*5 Achaia: Tanagra ( ? ) . 20

O n the whole the portraiture of the reign is undistinguished, and even the ideal heads do not attain
the standard reached during the last years of Augustus. It is, indeed, necessary to point out that some
of the present coins may be even later than the principate o f Tiberius: the series of Aezanis shows that the
choice of portraits was to some extent eclectic, since for its coins with the name of Claudius models are
27 28 2
taken from heads of T i b e r i u s and Caligula, besides Claudius himself. * But the specimens illustrated
30
show the ugly general characteristics of the Tiberian epoch.

1
Bock, Reliquienschati %u Aachen, pp. 67 f., cf. Montini, Lyd. S. 78. 4. 1 2

Catalogo della Mostra Augustea di Romanita, p. 111, Wad. 892; cf. Berlin. Cf., for technique, Florence
1 3

22 a, pi. X X X I . cameo (Bernoulli, l.c. 11, 1, p. 95, pi. X X V I I , 8).

2
Visconti, Les monuments de sculpture antique du Paris, cf. Berlin, Munich. 1 4

musee Torlonia, p. 121. 164. L.c. pp. 76, 78. Paris = M . in, 39. 55.
3 1 5

4
As named by-Curtius, Rom. Mitt. 1934, p. 130, Paris = M . i n , 167. 773, var. Berlin, Istanbul. Cf.
1 6

cf. Abb. 4. Paris sardonyx (Babelon, Catalogue des camees antiques

5
Own collection with ZEBAZTOY; cf. -portrait on et modernes de la Bibliothlque Nationale, p. 117. 252, pi.
Vienna onyx (Eichler-Kris, Die Kameen im Kunst- X X V I ) .
historischen Mus. Pi. 7. 14). Paris AHMOZ, misdescribed by M. iv, 101. 553. 1 7

6
BMC. 26. Munich, Istanbul. BMC. 8; cf. Berlin.
7 1 8

8
BMC. 115; cf. Divus Augustus, BMC. Imp. Vienna = M. and S. vn, 609. 551. Also BMC. 20. 1 9

(Ti.) 158. MG. 410. 141, Copenhagen; cf. BMC. 23. Cf. BMC.
Paris, cf. M. iv, 36. 184 (Zeus standing): perhaps Imp. ( T i . ) 46 for head.
9

bad copy of Bernoulli, Romische Ikonographie, 11, 1, Wad. 2073; cf. Weber 6325. 2 0

p. 178 n. 2, gem in BM. Also of this mint: own coll., Cast in Winterthur = KM. 319. 39. 2 1

Paris, Berlin, head of Zeus. Wrongly attributed by Muller, Thorvaldsen cat. 2 2

!° Munich, Aristeas and Nicolaus [cf. GM. 282], has p. 268, not only to Augustus but to Gargara: it reads
Tiberian head and is attributed to him; BM cast, CAr. T. like a coin of Ariassus (BM) with APIAZ.B.,
Aristeas and Teisam. [cf. BMC. 197, Numismatic which it closely resembles in style.
Circular, 1915, p. ] has similar features; Wad.
5 1 2 j Gotha, Munich (rightly attr. by BMC. 15). 2 3

1011 = Pi. X I , 9, Aristeas and Agreus, may well be Naples, var. Berlin, Munich, etc. 2 4

post-Augustan. I f this supposition is correct, the *5 ZEBAZTOY KTIZMA: Zagreb.

following, also signed by Aristeas, must be removed to BMC. 52 ff. (cf. p. 386 n. 2). 2 7
BMC. 87, 90.
2 6

a smular date: BMC. 198 with Nicostratus, Oxford = M. BMC. -76-7, 89. BMC. 75, 84-6.
2 8
2 9

and s. vi, 124. 307 with Asclepiades, Vienna = GM. O n a curious coin of Perga (Paris = Pi. X I I , 14)
3 0

*82a with Metrobeis [sic]. the legend TIBEPIOZ ZEBAZTOZ is accompanied by a

portrait not in the least resembling Tiberius. It may
( T i ) ^ C 1 8
' °* ° f
g > '
i v U S
P'A u u s t u s B M C Im

however, be of Claudius.
464 APPENDIX 7
(2) C A L I G U L A . Provedly post-Augustan coins o f Aphrodisias (p. 329) indicate the influence of
1

Caligula's features on the portraiture of Z E B A Z T O Z coins—a subject also illustrated b y the coinage of
Nemausus* (e.g. P i . I I , 24), where the identification of the head was no less ambiguous. A number
of other Asian coins with Z E B A Z T O Z etc. likewise bear witness to the iconographic tendencies which
3 4
began i n this reign, to which, perhaps, a posthumous seated figure of Augustus at the Hermitage is
to be referred. Asia: Aphrodisias ( P i . X , i7),5 Apollonia Salbace ( P i . X , 13), Attaea, Cidramus (PI. x
6
7

14), Dardanus(?),9 Lampsacus, Laodicea ( P i . X , 18)," Midaeum ( P i . X , 15), Pergamum, Trapeze^

8
10
12
13

p o l i s ( ? ) . Galatia: Aspendus, * Sagalassus ( P i . X I I , 12). Epirus: Nicopolis ( P i . X I I , 6).

14 1
16
Syria-Cilicia-
17

Ascalon, Gaza, * Mallus ( P i . X I I , 18).

18 1
20

(3) CLAUDIUS. Coins with idealized portraits, proved on non-iconographic grounds to be of

21
Claudian date, are all paralleled in other mediums, and lead us to conclude that some of thefinestand
22
most popular conceptions of Augustus are those of Claudian engravers and sculptors. Other styles
23 24 25
demonstrably of similar date, are more grotesque. Nemausan issues afford good analogies, and some
26 27
are closely akin to a posthumous statue o f Augustus at Aquileia. O n many of these the unheroic
features o f Claudius are more or less adapted; on others they are adapted litde or not at all. But s
1
Compare a head at Copenhagen (Poulsen, Kongelige vi, pi. I V , 19). The finest example is perhaps a cameo
Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Archaeologisk-Kunst- belonging to E . J . Hope-Masham, of which a photo-
historisk Meddelelser, n , 1. 1-37, pi. L X I fig. 73). graph was given to the writer by R . P. Hinks.
2
See above, p. 75. 3
Montini, l.c. pp. 77f. Possibly a prototype is the Vatican statue (Bernoulli,
4
Kieseritzky, Eremitage, p. 95. 193. l.c. p. 29). In all cases the Asian coin-engravers take
5
BMC. 85; cf. Vienna onyx (Bernoulli, l.c. p. 310, liberties in the direction of idealisation.
pi. X X V I , 13). Other portraits in this undoubtedly Claudian category
6
Rome, c/. GM. 428; cf. idealistic conception of recall the following: Prima Porta Augustus (Strong,
terracotta at Amsterdam (Allard Pierson, Allgemeem CAH. pi. iv, p. 148 is not invalidated but supplemented
Gids, p. 186, 1716). Rightly attributed by GM. 428. by Alfbldi, Rom. Mitt. 1937, pp. 48ff.—paceFrank,
7
Karlsruhe, with K A I Z A P . AJP. LVI, 1936, p. 405); Vatican bust (Fuchs, Rom.
8
Cambridge, cf. KM. 139, Hirsch sale, x m , 3881. Mitt. 1936, pi. 30. 1); Louvre statue attributed to
9 BM = NC. 1920, p. 20. Caligula (?) (Bernoulli, I.e. p. 314, pi. X V I ) ; or repre-
1 0
Own coll., cf. Baldwin, Coins of Lampsacus, 2f.: sent refined versions of BMC. Imp. (Claudius) 229,
cf. BMC. Imp. (Cal.) 14. cf. Beverley cameo (Lippold, Gemmen und Kameen,
" BMC. 151; cf. glass cameo at Berlin (Furtwangler, p. 179, pi. 72. 3), and perhaps Athens head (Stuart, The
cat. p. 349. 11210, pi. 68). Portraiture of Claudius, Preliminary Studies, p. 77. 38,
1 2
Vienna: Germanicus not C . Caesar, pace MG. not Claudius, pace Curtius, l.c. p. 135, Abb. 13).
409. 137; cf. New York head (Curtius, l.c. p. 131, E . g . Dionysopolis (Pi. X , 32), Sebaste (ibid. 33),
2 3

Abb. 10), and BMC. Imp. (Cal.) 10, 11. Philomelium (ibid. 40), Hierapolis (ibid. 35), etc See
1 3
BM = M. and S. v, 92 (with AY[TOKP<5CTCOP]). above l.c.
1 4
Munich = M. i n , 388. 494. 4
* Such curious types strengthen the conclusion of
1 5
Istanbul = M. S. vn. 28. 11. Stuart, l.c. p. 50; cf. n. 257? mat equally incompetent
1 6
Munich, Wad. 3820, Ant. GM. 255. portrait-statues were not intended as burlesques. Cf. also
17
ZEBAZTOY K T I Z M A : Rome, var. Thorvaldsen coll. Cervetri Claudius in Lateran, ibid. p. 70. 7; Bernoulli,
(rev. MYPICONYMOZ). AYrOYZTOZ (rev. tetrastyle Lc. pi. X I I I a. The peculiarities of these styles resemble
temple): Christ Church (Oxford). those of a Paris sardonyx (Babelon, l.c. p. n o . *4°>
x 8
Boutkowski, DN. 1745 etc. pi. X X I V ) and the Vatican Claudius as Jupiter. For
Morelli=M. and V . 536. 115. the Hierapolis coin cf. Berlin glass cameo (Furtwangler,
2 0
Milan = M. and S. v n , 226. 286. l.c. p. 349. 11211), and sardonyx in BM (Walters,
2 1
E . g . Laodicea ad Lycum (Pi. X , 20, 21, 22), Apol- p. 339. 3596). ,
lonia (ibid. 27), Tripolis (ibid. 30), DionysopoUs (ibid. * Pi. I l l , 6, 7 (r), cf. Paris chalcedony 'Drusus jun.
2

28), Pergamum (ibid. 46), Synnada (ibid. 25,26), Siblia (Babelon, pi. X X V I , 258). Pi. I l l , 7 (0,
(ibid. 71), Metropolis (ibid. 72), Prymnessus (Pi. X I , 1), statue of Nero Drusus (Bernoulli, l.c. p. 204, pL Xiy;*
etc. See pp. 328 ff. above. PI. I l l , 1 (1), cf. Gabii 'Germanicus* (Babelon,
2 2
The principal group (Laodicea etc.) recalls a Paris pi. X , cf. p.. 237). Pi. I l l , 1. 4—elongated t y r ~ "
sardonyx (Babelon, l.c. p. 109. 237, Pi. X X I V ) and Caligulan coins, cf. Paris sardonyx as early as Til
probably explains its non-Augustan style, viewed with (Babelon, l.c. pi. X X V I , 249).
suspicion by Babelon. Cf. Marlborough sardonyces Cf. Montini, l.c. p. 81.
2 6

(Sale [1899] 390, 422), Uffizi sardonyx (Mustilli, QA. Brus'm, II Regio MuseoArci
2 7
 APPENDIX 7 465
iconographic probabilities have always been ignored in favour of a false deduction from the word
1
ZEBAZTOZ, or a conventional attribution when this is absent. Among coins whose portrait, rather
2
than internal evidence, bears witness to a Claudian date are the following: Aninetus, Antiochia ad
Maeandrum (Pi. X , 36), Cibyra (Pi. X , 41), Clazomenae, Cos (Pi. X , 37),* Dionysopolis(?), Lamp-
3 4
5 7

sacus (Pi. X , 43), Magnesia ad Maeandrum (Pi. X , 39,9 Pi. X , 42), Miletus," Mylasa (Pi. X , 38),"
8 10

Nysa, Orthosia, Priene, Thyatira, TiberiopohV Galatia: Sillyum (Pi. X I I , 15), Termessus minor
13 14 15 16 7
18

(Pl. X I I , 13). Thessaly: Magnetes. Epirus: Nicopolis. Macedonia (Thrace): Abdera.

19
20 21 22

(4) N E R O . Group (4) (Pergamum) shows Neronian idealism, of which Nemausus records a more
powerful variety. The ideal Augustus of the period is conveniently dated by Aezahis (p. 3 28). Iconographic
23
24

considerations necessitate the addition of the following to the period: Asia: Alabanda, Apollonia Salbace 25

(Pl. X,44), Clazomenae (Pl. X I , 44X Elaea, Ephesus, Euromus, Germe, Lampsacus, Miletus (?),
26
27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Pergamum, Tabae (Pl. X , 45),^ Teos, Thyatira.

34
Galatia: Attaleia. Thessaly: Magnetes.
36
Syria 37 38 39

Cilicia: Anazarbus. 40

(5) G A L B A . Asia: Cibyra (Pl. X , 48), 41

Clazomenae, Cotiaeum. 42 43

(6) F L A V I A N S . Asia: Ephesus, Euromus, Priene, Scepsis, Tabae, uncertain. Galatia: Attaleia.5°
44 45 46 47 48 49

Epirus: Nicopolis. Moesia: Istrus, Tomis. Syria-Cilicia: Augusta. Now that the style becomes
51 52 53 54

1
With very few exceptions, e.g. Ephesus, BMC. 203 ff. Paris (Babelon, l.c. pl. X X V , 245), Berlin carnelian
2
Cast at Winterthur= MG. 470. 74. (Furtwangler, l.c. p. 229. 9209), and Blacas agatonyx
3 Cambridge, cf. BMC. 28. (Walters, BMC. pl. X X X V I I I , 3577).
4
Wad. 5819. For curious skull cf. Braccio Nuovo BMC. 25; cf. 27—or Flavian.
2 5

bust (Fuchs, Rom. Mitt. 1936, pl. 30. 1). Berlin, cf. KM. 1; cf. Vienna onyx (Bernoulli, l.c.
2 6

5 BMC. 115 (probably). p. 158, pl. X X V I I I . 1).

6
BMC. 224; cf. BMC. 229. BMC. 226 may or may Rome,cf.M7.i895,p.283; also Paris,cf.Weber 5801.
2 7

not belong to the same generation. For nasal exaggera- Munich, cf. KM. 1; Athens, Wad. 1326.
2 8

tion of BMC. 224 cf. Paris sardonyx (Babelon, l.c.

2 9
Paris (ZEBAPT. [sic]). BMC. 8 (ZEBAZTOI). 3 0

p. 142. 269, pl. X X V I ) .

3 1
BM (AYTOK. KAI. ZEBAZ.).
BMC. 16; Wad. 593. 6.
7
Own coll.; cf. BMC. 77, Baldwin 1.
3 2

8
Gotha (AHMOZ PCoMAIOiN). Muensterberg, s.v.; cf. M. m, 1240.
3 3

Hague, c£ KM. 19; cf. BMC. Imp. (Cl.) 5, Berlin

3 4
9
Munich (AYTO. KAIZ. ZEBAZ.).
carnelian (Furtwangler, l.c. p. 110. 2331), Paris sardonyx Gotha, cf. M. and S. vi, 529; cf. (?) Rossie Priory
3 5

(Babelon, l.c. p. 143. 272, pl. X X X ) , Evans cameo head (Poulsen, Greek and Roman portraits in English
(Mustilli, QA. vi, p. 10, pl. I l l , 14). country houses, p. 63. 42). Perhaps Flavian: but Strato-
1 0
Berlin, cf. Thorvaldsen paste (Fossing, Cat. nicea (p. 330) shows that Nero's features could produce
p. 266. 1967). similar effects.
" Glasgow (Hu. 17), Cambridge (Grose 8242). Gotha, cf. BMC. 69 (ZEBAZTOZ KTIZTHZ).
3 6

BMC. 20; cf. BMC. 22.

1 2
Paris, cf. M. iv, 156. 889.
3 7

Wmterthur=i?S. xiv, p. 11. 3.

1 3
Berlin, cf. M. iv, 450. 27 f.
3 8

1 4
Paris (Philinus) wrongly described by M. in, Athens, cf. Wace, JHS. 1906, pp. 165 ff., 2.
3 9

374. 462. 4 0
Istanbul, Oxford (KAIZAPEOON TCON TTPOZ ANA-
| Munich, cf. KM. 6 (attr. Vespasian).
5
ZAP[B0)]).
1
Copenhagen, cf. M. iv, 156. 889; a Paris specimen Berlin, cf. KM. 24.
4 1
Paris, cf. M. and S. vi, 79.
4 2

4 3
is more Neronian. Winterthur, Gotha (ZYNKAHTOZ).
1 1
NZ. xxxvm, 1906, p. 248 (AIAYMOI). 4 4
Own coll. For style of these cf. Berlin carnelian
1
Berlin, Wad. 3522; cf. BMC. Imp. (Cl.) 61. (Furtwangler, l.c. 8937).
* Athens, cf. Pl. X , 30 etc.
9
Vienna, 28236 (ETTI KAAPOY); pace Muensterberg.
4 5

0
Copenhagen.
46
KM. 6 (AYTOKPATuiP KAIZAP ZEBAZTOZ).
" Munich, cf. M. 11, 56. 80. Other Julio-Claudian of KM. 6, correcting MG. s.v.
4 7
Vienna (KAIZAP). 4 8

about this time are BMC. 7 m, Paris (Naumachia),

4 9
Hollschek (AYTO. KAI. ZEBAZTOZ).
Thorvaldsen cf. M. and S. in, 374. 101, Vienna var. 5 0
Own collection.
BMC. 1, Hollschek coll. (rider). Athens (AYrOYZTOZ KTIZTHZ, Victory), BMC. 12
5 1

2 jGotha (AYTOKPAT. KAIZAP ZEBAZ.). (ZEBAZTOY KTIZMA), Paris (galley).

2 4Pl" *> 9> 10; cf. above, p. 76 n. 4.
n
5* Sofia, NG. 1, 1, p. 171. 484 (AYTOKPAT. ZEBAZ.).
Cf Y *' S Monetaria, xxxiii, 1936, p. 548.
301 Rasse rui
NG. l.c. p. 673. 2576, correcting Soutzo.
5 3

posthumous sardonyx of Augustus and Agrippa at Vienna (M. m, 43).

5 4
466 APPENDIX 7
distinctively post-Augustan, efforts have occasionally been made to detach coins from the Augustan
series.
(7) N E R V A . Asia: Apollonis (Pi. X , 49). 1

(8) T R A J A N . Asia: Attaea,* Ephesus.3 Galatia: Attaleia.* Syria-Cilicia: Augusta.5

(9) A N T O N I N E S . Epirus: 6
Nicopolis.

1
Munich. 5 Vienna (galley).
2
BMC. 3, 4-(AYT. KAIIAP IEB.).
6
Athens (AYrOYITOI KTIITHI, Tyche), BM
3 Berlin (KAIIAP AYfOYITOI). (IEBAITOY KTIIMA, Naumachia), Copenhagen, cf. M.
* Gotha. and S. i n , 372. 88.
 4<>7

Appendix 8

A S I A N L O C A L ISSUES W I T H C O N T E M P O R A R Y H E A D S
OF A U G U S T U S

The coins will be classified according to the following official categories of denarius of which they imitate
1
the portraits:
( i ) c. 36 B.C. or earlier (pp. 49 f. n. 14).* (2) ' E a s t I ' , c. 36-27 B.C. (ibid.). (3) 'Emerita', c. 25-22.
(4) 'Caesaraugusta', c. 25-19. (5) 'East I I ' , c. 2o(?)-i7.3 (6) Rome, c. 19-12. (7) 'Patricia I ' , c. 19-15. 4

(8) 'Patricia I I ' , c. 19-15. (9) 'Lugdunum I ' , c. 15-6 B.C. (10) 'Lugdunum I I ' , c. 2 B.C.-A.D. 14.
5
6

The titles (except (6)) are intended as generic appellations—not as indications of mint, for which they
are meaningless (pp. 122,468 n. 11). T h e following table comprises the most frequent imitations by cities.?
A proviso must be added that many coins in Groups (8) and (10) may well be post-Augustan. T h e
'heroic' types which became so popular in Julio-Claiidian times (p. 464) were strongly influenced by (8),
as their juxtaposition in the Plates suggests. Chief among the models for (10) were the famous ' C L
8

Caesares' issues, which may well have continued after the princeps* deaths a h y b r i d has this reverse with
10

an obverse of Tiberius. T h e time-lags observed elsewhere (p. 463) make it particularly probable that a
number of Asian coins imitating this category are posthumous. T w o unpublished coins show particularly
clearly the likelihood of this: a portrait at Apollonia Salbace inscribed T I B E P I O Z Z E B A Z T O Z ( P i . X I , 37)"
is based on coins of this class," and one at Siblia with O Z Z E B A Z T O Z (reverse A H M O Z Z 1 B A I A N C 0 N ;
1
There are some whose barbaric or original execution represent successive varieties, but they are never far
make it impossible to discover what, if any, prototype apart and sometimes merge completely, e.g. BM (in
was used. Among these are the following, most of tray between 375 and 376) with legend of former and
which may be posthumous: Alinda (KM. 107. 4, portrait of latter type (cf. 375).
BMC. 11), Cibyra (Paris), Cilbiani (Hague: P i . X , 6
Differences of style, if not of mint, warrant a
42 NIKAIEu5N, misattributed to BTthyrifah Nicaea), Cos partition between BMC. 503 and 504: the groups are
([Berlin] Perdicus, cf. M. i n , 409. 86), Cyzicus (Ball entitled 'Lugdunum I ' and 'Lugdunum I I ' respectively.
39. 1128 etc.), Dardanus (Wad. 1134), Elaea (Wad. For the interval between them see Frank, A J P. LVI,
1324, cf. Oxford), Erythrae (BMC. 246, KM. 5), '935, PP. 33<Sff-
Ilium (BMC. 28, 31, Wad. 1154), Magnesia ad Maean- 7
The numbers within the brackets refer to the
drum (Gotha, Euphemus Euphem., var. KM. 20), Myrina Plates: those outside the brackets are from the Imperial
(Avignon: r. head of Zeus), Pergamum (BMC. 242), Catalogue (Augustus): they are intended to give a general
Phocaea (BMC. 131), Pitane (Wad. 991), Smyrna indication of the portrait-group to which the present
(BMC. 248), Temnus (BMC. 24, 27), Teos (BMC. pieces belong, rather than to point out an exact re-
67,68), Tralles (BMC. 114). The issues of Chios include semblance. The former is nearly always possible, since,
a coin with Augustus's name but without his head as Brendel shows (Jkonographie des Kaisers Augustus,
(Mavrogordato, NC. 1917, p. 225). Diss. Heidelberg, 1931), the number of official proto-
* Including the denarii with a shield (BMC. 309 etc.). types was comparatively small.
3
H . Mattingly agrees that the denarii with cow and Montini, Civiltd Romana, v, 1938, p. 29, explains
8

IOVI O L V . as types (BMC. 659-69) are to be trans- this fact by the contemporaneity of (8) with Augustus'
ferred from c. 27 to c. 17 B.C (cf. above p. 103): these last visit to the East: thereafter it was modified in
are here combined with the Armenian types (671 ff.) accordance, not with the princeps* features, which were
and later tetradrachms (694ff.) to form 'East I I ' . not again seen in the East, but with the imagination of
A. Sydenham has pointed out to die writer a successive artists. For the probable Eastern origin of (8)
radical distinction between a class with thin features, see below, p. 468 n. 11.
a pointed^ skull, and a small muscular neck (BMC. 9
For similar survivals see above, p. 75 (Nemausus),
?j i" *r'
7 c
O P a t r i c i a a n d
the remainder, which are of and Pick, Die Munqkunde in der Altertumswissetischaft,
idealised'fine'style. pp. 30 ff., Rostovtzeff, SEH. p. 513 n. 17.
l t n i n
.^ this group with idealised portraits it is not 1 0
Own collection.
possible to follow a differentiation of mint between 1 1
Copenhagen = Rhousopoulos cat. 3873.
llTr^ " BMC. Imp. 544 etc.
1 C A E S
A R I A V G V S T O and a laureate head,
and C A E S A R A V G V S T V S and a bare head. They may
468 APPENDIX 8
Pi. X I , 38) is clearly imitated from another.* Furthermore, a precisely similar head of Augustus occurs
1

3
on a sheath decorated with types concerning the principate of Tiberius. A head of Bacchus at Rhodes
(Pi. X I , 47) and the portrait on a chalcedony at Vienna5 show the transition to a Tiberian type.
4

(1) has been omitted from this table since it is only represented at Nysa ( P i . X I , 40, 417) and Phife.
6

delphia ( P i . X , 50), whose issues, being post-Actian, show a considerable time-lag. More surprising i
8
s

the great scarcity of (3) * Emerita', (6) Rome, and (7) * Patricia I \ These groups are almost totally neglected
by the Asian engravers. T h e first is entirely excluded in favour of the contemporary * Celsa' type. The
others may conceivably have influenced one issue each—at Magnesia ad Maeandrum ( P i . X I , io)9 and
Laodicea ( P i . X I , 8 ) respectively—but no more: they are ignored in favour of the abundantly copied
10

' East I I ' and * Patricia I I ' . This fact may open the way to a new orientation of the official aurei and denarii
against whose accepted arrangement, as has been shown, much criticism can be levelled (pp. 83, 122*
269 n n . ) .
11
' *

Rome = KM. 23; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 100 etc.(?)

1
Own collection. 9

* BMC. 538. However, Cesano, QA. 111, p. 26 1 0

BMC. 153; cf. BMC. Imp. Aug. 353 etc.(?)
illustrates a variety of this portrait as early as c. A.D. 3. 11
Between the termination of 'East I ' and the
3
BM, cf. Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries, establishment of 'Lugdunum I ' , two main stages have
NS. 11, 1866, p. 358. been noted: in the first of these Emerita and'Celsa' are
4
BM. 5 Eichler-Kris, l.c. Pi. 6. 3. active, and in the second—from c. 19 B.C.—'Patricia I '
6
Istanbul, var. BMC. 24: cf. BMCR. pi. V , 3, ' Patricia I I ' , ' East I I ' and Rome. It is highly significant
attributed to 39 B.C. that, in Asia, Emerita is first totally ignored (in favour
7
Cambridge (McLean 8684): severe style recalls head of' Celsa'), and then Rome and' Patricia I ' (in favour of
at Lansdowne House (Poulsen, Greek and Roman 'East I I ' and 'Patricia I I ' ) . Since at least two of the
portraits in English country houses, p. 57. 34), attributed three ignored mints are demonstrably Western, there is
to the very beginning of the Empire. Montini's a strong presumption that emphasis or neglect by the
attribution (l.c. pp. 44 ff.) of numerous Hellenising busts engravers of the Asian local issues was, in general,
to the first years after Actium is very dubious. determined by the extent to which the products of the
8
Wad. jitf = Lyd. S. 20 (Attalicos): closely various official mints circulated in their midst—and
imitated from denarii with shield (BMC. Imp. 309). So therefore, in all probability, by the geographical
also are Wad. 5134 (Antiochus Apollodotou), Weber situation of those mints. (Although the aurei and
3365 ( C . Julius Dionysus), Cephale (Berlin = RS. vi, denarii were universally accepted, their mints were pre-
269), Cleandrus (Lyd. S. 116. 18), Macedon (Vienna), sumably placed in such a way as to provide for neigh-
Moschion Moschionos (BMC. 54). A curious feature bouring groups of provinces.) It is, in this connection,
of these is the legend T A I O Z K A I I A P , which has highly significant that the types on die official series can
almost invariably led to attribution to Caligula: but be divided into two principal lines of succession,
these issues differ entirely in style and execution, as well (1) Emerita—'Patricia I'—'Lugdunum I ' and (2)
as iconographically, from others that are certainly 'Celsa'—'Patricia I I ' . This main division corroborates
Caligula's (e.g. BMC. 51, 52, 53 etc.). Although this the evidence of the Asian local issues: the two groups
epigraphic standard is usually unhelpful (cf. below, of official gold and silver are likely to be Western and
Appendix 11, p. 479), the fact that the present group Eastern respectively. In c. 15 B.C. all these provincial
invariably have C , and Caligula's coins I , is in accord- groups are merged in 'Lugdunum I ' , where portraits
ance with the other distinctions. T A I O Z K A I Z A P might recalling all previous models are found. This re-
refer to the grandson of Augustus, but the early date arrangement seems to be warranted by internal and
of the portraits makes it much more probable that it external evidence.
belatedly applies to the princeps himself a title superseded
at Rome a few years earlier (p. 415).
 APPENDIX 8 469

Group (2) (4) (5) (8) (9) (10)

Abydus 599( >50 x x

— 672* — — —
Acmonia
— — — — —
10
7O0
Adramyttium
— 330 (X,66) 4

— — — —
Aezanis
— —. 700 ( X , 62)" — — —
Alabanda
— 322 ( X , 6 )55
— — — —
Amorium
— — 669 ( X , 56)" — — —
Antiochia ad Mae.
— — — — — 538, 543 30 31

Apamea
— — — 385 (X,68),
395 (X,6 )*3
22

— —
— —
9
Aphrodisias 647(?) a

Clazomenae 68o(?), 6 13
7 3
1 4

Colophon
— — — — 482 ( X I , 27)*7 —
Cos
— — — — — 5i (XI,35) * 3

— — — — —
9

Cyzicus 68i(?) 5 I

Dardanus 653? ( X , 54) 3

— — — — —
Dioshieron o(X,6 )
3 4 4
6

— — —
— — 66o- (?)
— —
16
Elaea 4

490 ( X I ,
— 678,"
— —
8
Ephesus (X,6 )7 3
3 3 )*
702 ( X , 59), 18

697 ( X , 58) 19

457 ( X I , 26) * 534 ( X I , 32)33

— —
2
Erythrae 342(??) 8
6 8(?)
7
20

Eucarpitic district
— — — 3 7 6(X, o) 7
2 4

— —
Eumenia
— — — — 5 6(?)34
3

Euromus
— — 702 (X,6o) 21
o8 5
4
S

1
Wad. 1065. 195, 196 and 198; Karlsruhe = Wad. 1613, KM. 61,
2
Berlin = Wad. 2526. GM. 284=702.
3
BM, cf. NC. 1920, p. 20; Wad. 1134. Gotha, cf. M. and S. vi, 309, Memnon and Nicolaus;
1 9

4
Oxford, cf. NC. 1935. 199. cf. others of Memnon, Munich, cf. NC. 1841, p. 82;
5
Istanbul, KAIZAP ZEBAZTOZ. Wad. 1619, cf. KM. 57; Wad. 1618, cf. KM. 58,
6
Wad. 1960= Pi. V I , 64. KM. 59.
7
Rome, cf. KM. 49, Philon and Euthycrates, shows 5^C.2 8f.,25if.
2 0
4
2 1
the influence of this group, but most signed by Philon BM, AVrvZTOZ [sic].
are later: vide 'East I I ' , column (5). Cambridge = KM. 14; cf. Wad. 5700, KM. 13a.
2 2

8
BMC.2^ff. BMC. 139 = 395 etc.
2 3

9
Paris = Nomisma v m , 1013, 2. 1. Winterthur, cf. BMC. 13.
2 4

1 0
BMC. 31. BMC. 7, clumsily copied.
2 5

11 W
- 5541.
a d BMC. 119.
2 6

Naples, variants BMC. 23, Capitoline. Berlin, cf. ZfN. XII, 1885, p. 315.
2 7

BMC. 118; cf. BMC. 117, barbarous of same 2 8

Paris, Artemas=490 etc., idealised; cf. others,
class (?). perhaps posthumous.
Copenhagen, cf. BMC. 250.
4
' BM, KTIFTHZ. 2 9

X J BM, cf. BMC. 210. 3° Kar. M. 12; cf. KM. n o . i ( ? ) . 4

*7 * ? r i s > E
*> n i N A P o
posthumous ideartype. r 3 GM. 40. 1

. , K
- pl- I I , 17, Philon and Tryphonas; cf. Philon,
M 3 BMC. 220; cf. BMC. 223.
2

33 BMC. 245.
with other names, BMC. 202, Paris -RS. x m , 224.
34 BMC. 36.
of A 1 * ' 9 > Asclas and Pammenes; others
S >c f B M C J 6

Asclas vary more or less from this type, e.g. BMC.

470 APPENDIX 8

Group 00 (4) (5) (8) (9) (W)

Heraclea Salbace 664Q) 536 (XI, )i,

3 4

( X I , 34)"
Hierapolis 3i5(?) . 7 362 (XI, 7) 16

Hypaepa 339(X,6 ) 8
I2 1 7
7 4
534*7
Iasus 472(?) 52

Ilium 632* 681"

Laodicea <S o(?)
5
3
414 (XI, 5) 18

Magnesia ad Mae. <579 ( X , 55) 13

Mylasa <553,3
(?) 9

602 (X, 2)4

5
Nysa 482* 52<5(Xr,28) 18

Pergamum 5io(?),*9 o 52I>3

519 (XI, 29)31

Prymnessus 3&K?) 19

Samos 5283*
Sardes 4i3, 20 508«
418 (XI, 6)" 5io(?)34
Scepsis 50835
Smyrna 6 (?)
47
5
? 07(XI, ),
4 3
M

? i8(XI,4)
4
13

Tabae
539(XI,3i) 36

Teos <547(?) 6
342" 670, 713
14 15

Tralles 52<J37
Trapezopolis 3 8 (XI, 6)
7 4
J 4

1
In trade, London: cf. BMC. 29 but head r. BMC. i8f.
1 9

3
BMC. 151. BMC. 97=413 etc.
1 0

3 BMC. 19; cf. Berlin - M. m , 355. 304. BMC. 103.

3 1

4 BMC. 24. Glasgow =Hu. 182; cf. BMC. 248.

3 3

5 BMC. 253. BM, cf. BMC. 251.

2 3

6
Paris = M. ill, 1497; cf. BMC. 68. 5AfC. 9.
3 4

7
Wad. 6135. Copenhagen, cf. M. and S. v n , 343. 506.
3 5

8
Paris, cf. M. iv, 71. 386. Glasgow (Hu. 8684), Oxford (NC. 1939, p. 19*
3 6

9
BMC. 24, of coarse execution, perhaps of this n. 2).
class. Paris = Hirsch sale, x m , 4052.
3 7

1 0
Ball 39. 1132; cf. BMC. 67. BMC. 23.
3 8

" BMC. 18. BMC. 239-41.

3 9

" Own collection = Schotten coll. 3110; Copen- BMC. 238.

3 0

hagen = GM. 222. BMC. 236; cf. BMC. 237.

3 1

1 3
Berlin, cf. KM. 23. BM = Weber 6324.
3 3

1 4
BMC. 70=670. iSikTC 103.
3 3

BMC. 69 = 71$. BMC. 213 (Homonoia).

3 4

1 6
BMC. 97 is a heroic version of 362 etc. 3 5
Copenhagen (capricorn)—attr. to Trajan!
BM, cf. KM. 517. 1.
1 7
Berlin, Artemidorus. 3 6

, 8
Istanbul, cf. M. iv, 317. 712. BMC. 81 (Sun).
3 7
 47i
Appendix 9

ASIAN LOCAL ISSUES OF T H E PRINCIPATE OF AUGUSTUS

PORTRAYING MEMBERS OF H I S FAMILY

(1) L i v i A. Reason has been given for believing that many of her commemorations were post-Augustan
(p« 3 9 ) 2 :
m a n
y others are hard to date, since heads of the ' L i v i a n type' may or may not be intended to
1 2
represent deities invested with her attributes. I n this category (among others) are coins of Alinda,
3 4 5 6
Antiochia ad Maeandrum, Astypalaea, Germe, Orthosia(?). Some of these may be of the principate
7
of Tiberius or even later. T h e only certainly Augustan issues that remain are of Pergamum: possibly
8
too she may be represented at Cyzicus.
(2) J U L I A . Cyzicus(?), Pergamum. 9 10

£j) C A I U S C A E S A R . It has been pointed out that even his portraits cannot be certainly called Augustan,
since some at Pergamum and Tralles are demonstrably later (p. 363). There are also heads" at: Alabanda, 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 1
Antiochia ad Maeandrum, Aphrodisias, Cilbiani, Clazomenae, C y z i c u s , Hierapolis, Ilium, *
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Magnesia ad Sipylum, N y s a , Pergamum, Pitane, Scepsis, Sibliani,
27 28 29 30
Temnus ( ? ) , Tralles, T r i p o l i s , and issue without ethnic. Apart from the possibility that many o f these
are post-Augustan, a further caution is imposed b y the use of f*A10Z K A I Z A P as a titulature not only by
Caligula but by Augustus also (e.g. at Philadelphia [p. 468 n. 8]). Caius appears riding in a quadriga at
31
Apamea.
(4) L u c i u s C A E S A R . Aegae, Alabanda, Cilbiani, Clazomenae^ C y z i c u s , E l a e a ,
32
Ilium, 33 34 36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 4 5
Magnesia ad Maeandrum, Magnesia ad S i p y l u m , Pergamum, Pitane, Scepsis, Temnus ( ? ) , Tralles :
46
also certain title issues without ethnic. T h e name of Lucius—unless it is a magistrate's—appears without
47
his head at Prymnessus.
(5) T I B E R I U S . I t is impossible to determine when issues with T I B E P I O Z K A I Z A P belong to his
48
principate and when to that o f Augustus: but the portraits on issues of A c m o n i a and Antiochia ad
40 50
Maeandrum make it very probable that a number are to be allotted to the earlier period.
As at Rome: Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. cxxxv.
1
BMC. 5 = NC. 1861, p. 200: posthumous(?).
2 6

2 3 2 7
Munich (club in wreath). Munich (Apollo). Turin (jugate heads).
Berlin, Munich = M. iv, 400. 2 (head of Dionysus).
4
Copenhagen = M. iv, 183. 1060.
2 8

5
Berlin. BMC. 2, Paris, Zagreb: or earlier(?).
6
Wad. 2680, Berlin = Egger sale, XLVI, 1589, M. iv,
2 9

BMC. 248 (Charinus) (with Julia). Perhaps Tabae

7
593. 521 (incomplete).
(Hirsch sale, x m , 3940) is of similar date. 3 0
BM, Munich (different). Both insignificant and
8
Oxford (two female heads). probably local. BMC. 139: posthumous (?).
3 1

9
As last. BMC. 248 (with Livia). 1 0
Hollschek coll., correcting MG. 211 (Diphilus).
3 2

3 3
" With name unless otherwise stated. Istanbul.
12
Istanbul (with Augustus and Lucius). Wad. 4945, Vienna etc. - M. iv, 29. 148.
3 4

Cast at Winterthur = Kar. M. 12.

13
BMC. 120: posthumous (?).
3 5

BMC. 97, Gotha, Athens.

1 4
BM, Oxford, Munich, Gotha = Cahn sale, <5o (1928),
3 6

Wad. 4945, Vienna etc. = M. iv, 29. 148.

1 5
1378, M. 11, 536. 161.(no name: with Caius).
1
BMC. 120: posthumous (?). Gotha = M. and S. vi, 29. 194.
3 7

BM, Oxford, Munich, Gotha = Cahn sale, 60 (1928),

1 7 3 8
Gotha, Athens. Berlin, Wad. 1742.
3 9

37j, M. 11, 536. 161 (no name: with Lucius).

!
Munich, correcting Lyd. S. 87. 2, M. iv, 71. 387
4 0

Wad. 6145 (Cocus),6144 (Heras), 6146(Diphilus),

1
(no name: with Caius).
Berlin (Papias, Acritas). BMC. 246, 247.
4 1

* Gotha, Athens (with Lucius). Wad. 990, Mabbott coll. = GM. 186.
4 2

° Berlin, Wad. 1742.

a
4 3
Berlin. Turin (see n. 27). 4 4

Munich, correcting Lyd. S. 87. 2, M. iv, 71. 387 Berlin, Paris = M. and S. vn, 467. 698.
4 5

(no name: with Lucius). 4 6

BM, Munich (different). Berlin = GM. 725. 4 7

Gotha, correcting Boutkowski, DN. 2924. Munich, Nier coll., correcting M. rv, 198. 19.
4 8

, BMC. 246, 247.

4 Copenhagen = M. iv, 316. 77.
4 9

. ^ - 99o> Mabbott coll. = GM. 186.

a
a < i
5 0
But Claudius also may possibly use this titulature
Berlin (with Lucius). (p. 463 n. 30).
472

Appendix 10

THE ' A U T O N O M O U S * SERIES

T h i s book h«fe been planned to deal with such currencies o f the period as are relevant, direcdy or i n -
directly, to the Roman State. F o r the sake o f completeness, allusion will briefly here be made to the pere-
grine series which ignore Rome and its institutions, and may loosely be described as 'autonomous*.
Mints whose output was partially of this type, but partially also o f the types discussed in Part I I I , will
not again be mentioned here unless their 'autonomous* issues are distinguished from their others in date.
T h e following review does not claim to be critical or exhaustive, since the difficulties raised by the 'auto-
nomous* groups are vast, and irrelevant to the historical purposes o f this work. I t is hoped, however, that
even a general summary may facilitate reference and provide a slight assistance to research in this obscure
subject.

( i ) H I S P A N I A C I T E R I O R . I n this region no peregrine city strikes purely autonomous Latin coinage

1
under Augustus: but at an earlier date such series are provided b y four Latin cities—Valentia, Castillo,*
3 4 6 7 8
Saetabis, Osicerda —and four probably stipendiary—Clunia,* T o l e t u m , G i l i , Tamusia. A bilingual
9 10
Osicerdan issue is imitated from a denarius of C a e s a r : otherwise chronological indications are lacking.
Some of the series, e.g. those of Valentia, Clunia and Toletum, are likely to have ceased before our period.
T h e chronology of Zobel etc." has been entirely upset by Hill's demonstration that issues with Iberian
legends continued until late in the first century B.C. (cf. p. 347)." It may be added that Iberian coins of
13 14 1 16
the Ilergetes, T a r r a c o , SeOiscen * and perhaps Eustivaicola appear to be influenced b y Augustan
17
portraiture, and those of Castulo bear the same countermark as Latin issues by O b u l c o . I t must, then,
18
be supposed that these issues still flourished in the 'thirties B.C. and probably even later. T h e coins of Valentia
1 20
are signed b y quinquennales ? including members of some rare Italian gentes—C. Lucienus, L . Coranius,"
23
T . Ahius T . f.," L , Trinius L . f. T h e magistrates of Castulo are partly Iberian and pardy Romanised.
24 2 5
Toletum provides a C . V i c c i u s , the mysterious name C E L T A M B and the formula E X S C , probably
referring to the local authority (cf. p. 473).* T h e numerous problems relating to these issues deserve a
6

thorough study, which is beyond the scope of this work.

1
Vives iv, p. 15, Hiibner, MLI. p. 90; for status Ibid. p. 105 (pi. X I X . 8); cf. Caesaraugusta,
1 5

vide Kornemann, pp. 516, 528, Kubitschek, Imp. p. 200; pi. X I V . 2! 1 6

Ibid. p. 62 (pi. V I I I . <5).
cf. Pliny, NH. m , 20, Livy, Epit. 55, Sail. Hist. 11, Lenormant, La monnaie dans Vantiquiti, it, p. 20.
1 7

frg. 96. 6, Plut. Pomp. 18. 1 8

Not a Roman colony as supposed by Sutherland,
2
Delgado i n , 83, Hiibner, l.c. p. 103 etc.; for status RIS. p. 79. For coins see his pi. I I . 2.
vide Pliny, NH. 111, 25, Kubitschek, Imp. p. 191. Cf. Kubitschek, Imp. p. 200.
1 9

3
Hill, p. 129; Pliny, NH. 111, 25. Vives, l.c. 1; cf. Schulze, p. 105. A certain Q.
2 0

4
Hill, I.e.; Pliny, NH. i n , 24. Lucienus was a senator in c. 67 B.C. (Miinzer, PW.
5 Vives iv, pi. C L X X I I I ; Hiibner, l.c. p. 77. x m , 1615).
6
Delgado i n , p. 403; Hiibner, l.c. pp. 8, 97; for Vives, l.c. 2, cf. Schulze, pp. 355, 532.
2 1

status cf. Schulten, PW. (2R.), vi. Vives, l.c. 3, cf. Schulze, p. 163.
2 2

7
Hiibner, l.c. p. 47. Vives, l.c. 3, cf. Schulze, p. 550.
2 3
.
8
Vives i n , p. 113; Hiibner, l.c. p. 96; Schulten, PW. Cast in BMC; for Vicius, Vicceius, vide Schulze,
2 4

(2R.) iv, 2151. p. 261. The gens appears in Asia in the early Empire
9
Hiibner, l.c. p. 42. (Eph. ep. v n , p. 442. 1, and Hatzfeld, p. 167).
1 0
Cf. Sutherland, RIS. pi. I I , 7; Hill, l.c. * BM cast. Misread by Hu. 109, Heiss, p. 263. 2, etc.
2

1 1
Commentationes pAUologicae in honorem Th. Momm- Inadequate conjectural interpretation by Hiibner, p. 97>
sen (1877), p. 820. Delgado m , p. 403, Vives etc. ,
1 2
P. 139; cf. Delgado i n , p. 130. Schulten, PW. (2R.) v i , righdy discredits tne
2 6

1 3
Hill, p. 73 (pi. X . 7). reconstruction of other jumbled legends as the name
1 4
Ibid. p. 45 (pi. I V . 16). of a quaestor Coelius Caldus.
 A P P E N D I X 10 473
(2) H I S P A N I A U L T E R I O R . The pre-Augustan period witnessed an unparalleled development of local
currency in this region: coins have survived of more than sixty peregrine cities, mostly in Baetica.
Resemblances to the dateable official and local mintages at Salacia, Vesci, Myrtilis, Baelo and Urso (pp. 23 f.,
379) make it necessary to attribute the most productive period of coinage to the 'forties. The system was
1
perhaps inaugurated by Caesar, in whose monetary policy it clearly played an important part; it did not
long survive the administration of Sextus. Every grade of peregrine community contributed (cf. p. 296) :* the
composition of an accurate list, although highly desirable, cannot be attempted here owing to die large
number of unsolved problems which have no relevance to the historical themes of this book.
During the triumvirate the responsibility for local currency was transferred from the peregrini to the
Roman cities, whose issues have been discussed. The only non-Roman community whose coinage may
have survived for a time m entirely autonomous form was the civitas foederata Malaca, which uses Punic 3

legends: the Latin city of Carteia (p. 336) also continued to coin, but honoured the princeps on one occasion
4
and later elected Germanicus and Drusus as its duoviri, so that Malaca remains an isolated exception in
6
the strictly autonomous category. Other Latin towns which still issued a few pieces include Sexi,5 Osset,
and Nabrissa (Pi. VII, 26); the coinage of the last three suggests inclusion in the foundation-category.
7 8

9
The peregrine coinage of the earlier period is signed by the holders of various magistracies. Roman
names predominate, especially in Latin communities. Unusual are formulas such as M. An* Ant. et
Con&egae) at Baesuris, the names of Q. Opsilius and L . Raius at Carteia", and the initials (?) CONIPP.
10

at Obulco." Colp. at Onuba may be the transliterated version of a native tide of office, and likewise Bodo at
13

14 15
Lascuta. The bilingual coin on which the latter designation is applied to L . Terentius and L . Numitorius
bears a remarkable type of boar and serpent which has been referred to the war of the Turdetani with
l6 17
Bogud II : but many points remain obscure. Another issue of Lascuta may or may not bear the formula
SC; if it occurs, it is likely, as at Toletum, to refer to the local authority. Celtic and Iberian names occur
18 19
at several cities which are mostly unidentifiable; even at Carteia P. Mion., if this exists, recalls the
1
Cf. Hubner, l.c. p. 8. and Dedefsen (PhUologus, xxx, 1870, p. 296) mentions
2
E.g. Epora (Aipora) (Hubner, p. i n ) (foederata, the probability of Latin status.
Pliny, NH. m, 10); Ceretani (Hubner, l.c. p. 132, id. 8
See above pp. 335 ff. They are also not unlike the
PW. in, 1979, cf. Vives III, p. 78) (Latin, Pliny, NH. coins of Pax (p. 221), of which the model is of the
in, 23, cf. 'most of Turdetani' Strabo m , 151) and 'Patricia' class, but the coins differ totally from con-
Myrtilis, Salacia, see above, 11. c c ; Callet (Vives m , temporary issues of Roman colonies: perhaps Pax Julia
p. 84) (stipendiaria, Pliny, NH. i n , 12); etc. (Kornemann 180) was Latin (it is omitted by Pliny) and
3
Hubner, l.c. p. 118; for status cf. McElderry, JRS. die later Augusta Roman (Strabo i n , 151).
vm, 1918, p. 70 etc. ' For censores and quinquennaUs at Carteia cf. above,
9

4
Hubner, l.c. p. 12O. p. 156. 1 0
Rn. 1899, p. 244.
5
Vives v, p. 21. 14, cf. Heiss, p. 315. Neo-Punic 1 1
Vives iv, p. 21. Ibid, m, p. 56.
1 2

word for civitas (p. 174 n. 8). Epithets F(irmum \(ulium) 1 3

Ibid, HI, p. 73.
(Pliny, NH. 111, 8) indicate Roman or Latin status (cf. 1 4
Delgado 1, p. clxvii; cf. Zobel de Zangroniz,
van Nostrand, UCPH. iv, 2, 1916, p. 114). Owing to Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen GeseUsch.
Pliny's frequent neglect of Latinitas in this region (ibid.) 1863, p. 8, etc. Probably of Punic origin; cf. Vogue",
the latter is more likely here; it is also more in accordance Cyprische Inschriften, Levy, Phonvpsche Studien, in, p. 10.
with the character of the coin. 1 5
A n Antonian family: cf. Scott, Memoirs of the
6
Vives v, p. 95: L . Luc. P. Vet. (Madrid). Not likely American Academy, x i , 1933, p. 13; Cic. Phil, i n , 6,
to be Roman, as Hubner, La Arqueologia de Espana, 15-17.
p. 178. 1 6
Heiss, p. 358, Delgado, l . c cf. p. 169, Hubner,
7
Heiss p. 405: head of Minerva—CVIN statue on Mimoires numismatiques, I , p. 18.
column. Suggestions that this can be attributed to 1 7
Heiss, p. 357.
Carthago Nova or Norba (ibid.) are absurd, since the ™ Particularly mysterious is a group ascribed by
ethnic at the former was [C]VINC(or K ) , and Norba Zobel de Zangroniz, Rn. v m , 1863, p. 369 (cf. Hubner,
was not lulia but Caesarina (Pliny, NH. iv, 117, CIL. MLI. p. 136) to Salacia, by Delgado 11, p. 371 to
"> p. 81. 694). Since Heiss bears witness to S. Spanish Vama; for a signature Odacis. A, cf. Holder, Altceltischer
provenance (the present writer has seen several in trade Sprachschatz, ii, p. 834. For other obscure issues vide
from Spanish sources), Nabrissa—of which earlier Vives in, pp. 63, 92, 101, 114, Hubner, l.c. pp. 119,
peregrine issues are known (Hubner, MLI. p. 127)— 128 etc., etc.
is entirely suitable. Pliny, I.e., describes it as oppidum, 1 9
Attribution not accepted by Delgado 1, p. 92.
474 A P P E N D I X 10
1 2 3
Iberian language, and Obulco, which may also be Latin, provides several further examples. Othe
4 r
languages also occur.

(3) A F R I C A , Africa nova, Mauretania. The 'autonomous* issues of the African communities present
problems of quite extraordinary difficulty. They are conspicuously lacking in any historical indication that
would have warranted discussion in the text of this book or served to assist chronology. General stylistic
considerations indicate that the issues did not commence until the triumvirate at the earliest, and that
they continued until late in the principate of Augustus, to whose monetary scheme they brought con-
siderable variety, but, as their extreme rarity suggests, no great material contributions. The neo-Pu i n c

ethnics are often obscure enough to have warranted the most varying interpretations: these need not be
cited here (British Museum catalogues are hoped for and expected to supersede all previous literature)
5
A Latin ethnic appears at Iol-Caesarea, whose 'autonomous* coinage resembles those of Agrippias-
6
Caesarea, Eusebeia-Caesarea and Perinthus, in that these cities were not free but royal property.

(4) G A U L . Gallic tribal coinage continued to be current throughout the principate of Augustus
(p. 124). With the exception of a few already quoted, references to Roman authorities are absent. The
signatures of tribal officials are often inadequate for identification of their tribe, which must therefore
depend largely on provenance: since inter-circulation was wide, attributions are seldom decisive. The
7
latest general study, that of Blanchet, leaves many questions unanswered and many answers disputed.
Still obscure, for example, are the interesting issues of T. Pom. Sex. f. (p. 124 n. io), Cemiso Ex s. c.,9 and
8

Germanus Indutilli 1. (ibid. n. 9). Spectrographic tests reveal that the last of these coins is composed of
orichalcum? further metrological researches could be based on the legend of the Lixovii, Publico*
0

simissos (sic).11 12
Gallic legends occur; Greek is found in the south at the Latin city of Avennio* and 3

14
in the tribe of the Samnagetes.

(5) S I C I L Y . There is much difference of opinion concerning the terminus ante quern of the' autonomous'
15 16
issues of Catana with Greek legends. As Hill points out, it is improbable that Holm is right in supposing
that the coinage long survived the change from stipendiary to colonial status (probably in 21 B . C ) : all
17 1 8

other Sicilian colonies use Latin legends (p. 237). On the other hand, the belief of Head and Scramuzza 19 20

that the series ceased as early as c. 100 B . C does not do justice to the late style of some of the coins. 21

It cannot, however, be determined whether the mint still continued to function after the brief period of
general franchise after 44 (p. 189). The same must be said of the Greek coinage of the stipendiary town

1
Cf. Miono(?) at Mirebeau (CIL. XIII, 5617) and Senckler, BJ. x x i , 1854, p. 84 (Pompeians in 'Midi'),
Limoges (Holder, l.c. s.v.). de la Tour, Atlas des monnaies gauloises, 43 5 3 (Atectorix).
2
Pliny, NH. m, 10, epithet Pontificense. The general For the clientela of Pompey in the Narbonese province
uncertainty as to statuses is suggested by McElderry, cf. Syme, Papers of the British School at Rome, xiv, 1938,
JRS. v m , 1918, pp. 70, 77; cf. Steinwenter, PW. x, p. 15 n. 75.
1269E 9
Traiti, p. 86; cf. Rb. 1875, p. 304. As at Toletum
3
Hiibner, l.c. pp. I07ff.; Vives m , p. 57. and Lascuta, the formula is likely to refer to a local
4
Cf. Zobel de Zangroniz, Z. d. deutschen morgenland. senate.
Ges. 1863, pp. 8ff. Spectrogram 25.
1 0
" Traiti, p. 321.
5
Cherchell, Vienna, Copenhagen: Muller 111, p. 138. E.g. Remi, ibid. p. 379.
1 2

200f. Traiti, p. 440f.; ibid. Pl. I l l , 35. Cf. above,

1 3

For Caesarea see Strabo x v n , 831. Some (but not p. 391 n. 8.

6

all) coins bear the king's head and name (e.g. Muller Traiti, p. 240.
1 4

in, p. 105. 50, p. 107. 72). Coins of Sicily, p. 207.

1 5

Traiti.
7
HI, 709; Das alte Catania, pp. 44 ff.
1 6

8
Traiti, p. 255; differing opinions of Barthelemy, Orosius v, 13; cf. Kubitschek, Imp. p. 13°*
1 7

Etude des Monnaies gauloises frappies en Poitou (1874), Pliny, NH. m, 89; cf. Kornemann 166, Mommsen,
1 8

p. 14 (official), la Saussaye, Numismatique de la Gaule CIL. x, p. 720. Cf. above, p. 199.

Narbonnaise, p. 181 (Sextantio), Longp£rier, Rn. i860, HN. p. 135.
1 9 2 0
ES. p. 308.
p. 178 (Petrocorii), Chaugarnier-Moissenet, Numis- Recognised by Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p-
2 1

matique gauloise (1874), p. 3 (Arverni), Galy pace n, 4.

 A P P E N D I X 10 475
1
Amestratus, some of whose issues* resemble the latest of Catana. Under Augustus no Sicilian peregrine
3
city strikes 'autonomous' coins, with the possible exception of Panormus; indeed, only one peregrine
other mint survived, namely Segesta, which places the head of the princeps on its coins (p. 535).
(6) A C H A I A . Mrs Shear has recently shown that, contrary to the general view, the free city of
4

Athens coined regularly throughout the principate of Augustus; her discovery of Z E B A Z T O I on certain
specimens, however, is unauthenticated (p. 401 n. 10). The coinage of Sparta is mainly, but not entirely, 5

autonomous (pp. 343,382). It is very hard to decide which other currencies fall in this period, owing to the
6 7
uninformative character of types and feeble eclecticism of style. On the mainland Aegium and Pheneus
8 0 10
are likely to have coined in the triumvirate or a little later; Lemnos (in the Athenian Empire), Andros
11
and Paros perhaps swelled the exiguous island-coinage under Augustus of which the part with Imperial
portraits has been described (p. 354). The Epirote mints of Cassope and Corcyra (civitas libera) * may
4
12 13 1

also not have been entirely inactive, and the Thessalian league, before coining under Augustus (p. 363),
15
may have issued an autonomous piece to celebrate its liberation by Caesar. But the criteria are inade-
quate for the compilation of a complete list.
(7) M A C E D O N I A - M O E S I A . The main body of the double province adds only Torni to the list of 16

cities with an exclusively 'autonomous' coinage in this period. But the principle may be established that
independent urban enclaves in the territory of client-kingdoms were attributed to the general supervision
of the nearest governor: thus Abdera (civitas libera) (p. 375), which coined perhaps under the triumvirate, 17
18

10
must be mentioned here. Chersonesus also issued pieces at this time, the word E A E Y . indicating that
20 21
the change from royal dominion (Strabo ) to libertas (Pliny's source) had already occurred. However,
as in Numidia at Iol-Caesarea, royal rule was here no obstacle to local coinage, since issues of Augustan
22 23
date occur at Panticapaeum and Agrippias-Caesarea (Phanagoria), both of which belonged to the
24 25
Bosporan dynasty. Olbiopolis produced an extensive series, whose imitation of Roman and Bosporan
26 27 28 20
portraiture does not warrant identifications with Caesar, Antony, Augustus or kings.

(8) A S I A . This province provides a large bulk of'autonomous' aes coinages during this period. They
may—by a very rough approximation—be classed in two groups, with Actium as the point of division:
(a) c. 49-31 B.C. (cities sometimes referring to Antony or his wives, or to governors of the period, are
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
here omitted). Alinda, Aphrodisias-Plarasa, Blaundus(?), Caunus, Chios, Dionysopolis, Elaea,
1
Hiilsen, PW. 1, 1828, Mommsen, CIL. x, p. 769.
2 0
vn, 308; cf. Brandis, PW. in, 2268.
2
Vatican: variety of BMC. p. 31.
2 1
NH. iv, 85.
3
BMC. Sicily, p. 58 etc. Cf. above, pp. 197 f. n . 6. 2 2
Giel, Zapiski Imp. Russk. Arch. Obschch. v,
4
Hesperia, 1936, pp. 285 ff. p. 349. 34.
5 BMC. 62ff.etc. BMC. 6-9 (Theoxius). 6 2 3
BMC. iff.; cf. NZ. 1870, p. 250, NC. xvi, p. 98.
7
BMC. 25 (Hermaxous). 2 4
Cf. Tomaschek, PW. 1, 899.
Gotha, Athens. 2 5
Burachkov, Koehne (l.c. p. 80), catalogues of
9
Cf. Fredrich, PW. x n , 1930. Odessa and Kotschoubey collections, are the completest
1 0
Hague. studies.
11
Oxford, cf. BMC. 28 etc. 2 6
Couris coll., cf. Boutkowski, DN. s.v.
1 2
BMC. 16. 2 7
Specimens at Paris show a resemblance.
13
BMC. 604rT.(?), cf. Glasgow (Hu. 11, p. 21. 52). 2 8
Specimens at Paris show a resemblance; cf. attribu-
| Pliny, NH. iv, 12. 19.
4
tions by Boutkowski, DN. 1604^; Head, HN. p. 273.
15
Glasgow (Hu. 1, p. 459. 27, cf. Macdonald, I.e., 2 9
Specimens at Paris recall the style of royal coinage.
pace BMC. 43 f. attr. to Thessalonica). See Rogers, 3 0
References will be given to single coins rather than
Ancient Coinage of Thessaly. to books since types often persisted through a long
Sofia, Gotha, Paris, BMC. 4f.; several varieties. period.
J Pliny, NH. iv, 42; cf. Jones, CERP. p. 14. 3 1
Gotha. Athens. 3 2

3 3
Paris. BM (or earlier?).
Colls. Prowe, Bertier Delagarde; Koehne, De-
1 9 3 4
Berlin (KM. 1).
o Tv
nP n U
f'M
Pu s
Kotschoubey, pp. i86ff.;
4 e d e U l e r i n c e 3 5
Cf. Mavrogordato, NC. 1917, p. 207.
Ureshmkov, Nurm\maucheskago Svornika, Hi, 1914, 3 6
Munich.
P- 44; cf. v o n Sallet, ZfN. 1,1874, p. 27, iv, 1877, p. 273. 3 7
BMC. 16 ff., 28, 29.
476 A P P E N D I X 10
2 3 4 6 7
Epicteteis (?),* Eriza, Erythrae, Heraclea ad Latmum(?), Hydisus(?)5 Ilium, Laodicea, Neapolis ad
8 9 10 11
Harpasum, Orthosia, Pergamum, Samos, Tabae." The lack of chronological indications is so serious
and stylistic criteria so uncertain, that this list makes no claim to completeness or accuracy; the coins cited
could not, however, be much earlier than Caesar or later than Antony.
(b) c. 31 B.C.-A.D. 14 (cities sometimes referring to Augustus or his family, or to the senate and its
13 14 15 16 17 18
governors, are here omitted). Amyzon, Bargasa, Lebedus, Rhodes, Samos, Thyatira. Many
more coinages appear to fall to the first three decades after the death of Augustus. The present lists are
as far as they go, entirely in harmony with the conclusion concerning libertas reached elsewhere (p. 401/
but it is difficult to see how they could be anything but fragmentary. '
(9) G A L A T I A . The cities Aspendus, Bubon andTermessus, and the Lycian League, which place the
head of Augustus on their coins (pp. 354f«> 34 f-)> appear to have monopolised the peregrine currency of
2

this province from Actium until A.D. 14. To the rule of Caesar or Antony may tentatively be ascribed issues
of the following communities: Balbura, Cremna (Pi. X I I , 11), Etenna, Iconium, Perga, Pessinus,
19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26
Tavium; the coinage of Termessus major ceased soon after Zela.
(10) B I T H Y N I A - P O N T U S . Byzantium, which was a free city attached to this province, issued a single
coin with Antony's head (p. 369), but during the principate of Augustus only struck pieces of 'auto-
27
nomous' type. Many of its issues have a curious style suggesting the use of the chisel, which adds to the
usual difficulties of chronological attribution.
(11) S Y R I A - C I L I C I A . In Syria etc. Tyre and Samosata coin regularly, and Botrys, Marathus and
28 29 30 31

32
Rhosus occasionally, without reference of any kind to the Roman state. In Cilicia purely 'autonomous'
series are more plentiful than those with the princeps* head, being found, at various dates within this
33 34 35 36 37 38
period, at Adana, Celenderis, Corycus, Elaeussa, Seleucia ad Calycadnum and Tarsus.
2 6
BMC. I2ff.
1
Vienna (or earlier?).
2
BMC. 1. Christ Church, Paris, Istanbul, Glasgow (?) (Hu. 1,
2 7

3
Berlin (KM. p. 65). P- 395).
4
Copenhagen, Adiens. Rouvier, JIAN. vi, 1903, pp. 308 ff.
2 8

5 BM (or earlier?). 2 9
BMC. 1 ff., Paris. For Sidon see above, pp. 126,
6
BMC. i8f. 7
Brussels.
8
BM. 9
BM. 345-
BMC. 163, 183 etc.
3 0
1 0 1 1
Milan. Beyrouth (American College), Hoffmann coll.; cf.
1 2
Wad. 2614.
1 3
Berlin, in trade (Paris). Rouvier, JIAN. n, 1899, p. 9, iv, 1901, p. 35.
1 4
Paris. *5 BMC. 13, 15. Rouvier, JIAN. iv, 1901, p. 146.
3 1

1 6
Oxford.
1 7
BMC. 210 ft Brussels; cf. M. v, p. 269. 836.
3 2

1 8
Paris. 1 9
BM. BMC. 12, Oxford, Istanbul.
3 3
BMC. 40. 3 4

2 0
BM. 2 1
Paris. BMC. 9; Wad. 4251 is tooled.
3 5

" BM.
2 3
Wad. my BMC. 10 etc. (before 20 B.C.).
3 6

* 4
Wad. 6653. 5 BMC. 1 f.
2 BMC. 15, Oxford; perhaps also Wad. 4454*'
3 7

BMC. 122 etc.

3 8
 477

Appendix 11

ART

The aes coinage throughout the Empire provides an extraordinary wealth of material for the study of
provincial art. It includes a series of documents which outdoes all other contemporary evidence in extent
and probably also in value: this value is enhanced by the unselfconscious carelessness with which many
of the types are executed. Yet this unique source is entirely ignored. The individuality of the native traits
which were to contribute so much to the evolution of medieval art is indicated by the fact that not much
experience is needed to determine atfirstsight, with fair certainty, the region in which an aes coin of this
1
period was struck.
It is only to be expected that the general level of accomplishment is low. As on the official gold and
2
silver, very little care is devoted to reverse-types. The portraiture too sometimes sinks to depths untouched
by those series, often in attempts to imitate them: but it also records some astonishing successes which,
for their brilliant use of a smallfield,are worthy of inclusion among the most interesting artistic productions
of the Roman world. Good and bad alike bear the stamp of regional influences, which are sometimes (though
not usually) as perceptible on official as on local aes. This is not the place for an attempt to assess the
numerous artistic influences that were at work, or to institute comparisons with other arts: but such tasks,
whose importance would be very great, may be assisted by a rapid review of the principal tendencies and
most remarkable achievements. Before this is attempted, however, it must be pointed out that many of
the criteria for regional attribution are based on considerations too intangible for description.
The earliest Italian issue, of Clovius, is in the best Hellenistic tradition, and Antony's 'Fleet' coinage,
at the other end of the peninsula (?), attains some notable compositions under Greek influence. The finest
products of Octavian's official mint at Puteoli(?) (Pi. I, 14) are expressive Italic portraits in low
relief, better than those later attained on the Roman aes. The latter varies widely, but remains' undis-
tinguished, though never so poorly executed as the output of Paestum (Pi. V I I , 9-15). An interesting Italian
style of portraiture is that of the C A mint at Aquileia(?) (Pi. IV, 10). Until the first enfranchisement of
Sicily its numismatic art under the Romans is colourless; thereafter it is abominable (Pi. VI, 1, 2, 3, 18).
The contrast to its heyday is hardly credible. Occasionally a certain unpleasing individuality is attained
by its portraiture (Pi. VI, 17, X I I , 28). The military mint at Lipara, however, has more competent craftsmen
whose native origin is revealed by pronounced Libyo-Punic traits; if more could be seen of it, a portrait
of Statilius Taurus (?) (Pi. II, 13) might have merit. The coinage of other islands in the neighbourhood
of Sicily, Melita and Cossura, has an unmistakable style in which the Semitic element is even stronger.
The technique of Sardinian engravers is rudimentary (e.g. the eye is rendered most primitively—Pi. VI, 4),
but there is much character in the portrait of M. Lurius (?) (Pi. VI, 19). Here too Punic influences are strong.
Spanish mints provide examples of native influences (Pi. V, 18-22). The style at Malaca is predomi-
nantly Punic, and there is not much difference between the issues of South Baetica and the Mauretanian
coast. Celtiberian traits are frequent: they persist in exaggerated form—perhaps for political reasons
(P* W)—at municipium Emporiae (Pi. V , 15-17). Elsewhere they diminish gradually. But the colonies
3
soon achieve the * academic and banal' semi-Romanised style characteristic of Spain, with a Greek tinge
in the South. The portraits are mosdy slavish imitations of Roman official coinage; but a head of Cn.
Statius Libo at Saguntum (Pi. VI, 9) is an original application of late Republican methods.
The official mints in Gaul show very strong native influences. Of the Augustan issues at Nemausus
very few rise above a semi-barbarous technique, whose persistence makes it impossible to consider every
coin which manifests it an 'imitation' (Pi. II, 17,18, 21, 22, 23). The only successful aesthetic achievement
For the strength of provincialism in the Empire, 2
Cf. Mattingly, BMC. Imp. p. lxii.
V l d e
venson, RPA. p. 132.
Ste 3
Albertini, CAH. xi, p. 498.
478 APPENDIX 11
is a portrait of Agrippa (Pl. II, 20). The earlier products of Lugdunum as an official mint are equallv
variegated, and often very poor; but a few heads show traces of Greek idealism. Towards the end of the
reign a more sober and consistent Roman style was initiated. Official issues from Northern Gaul (e.g
Hirtius, Pl. I X , 24-25, and Pl. IV, 19) are wholly Gallic in appearance.
In Africa the issues of Byzacene, Zeugitana and Numidia show an unmistakable and persistent
individuality which bears witness to a firm fusion of the three principal racial elements (Roman, Libyan
1
Punic ) to form a homogeneous graphic art. Of Greek influences the signs are few. Characteristic of the
area is a virile gaucherie to which Roman Republican art contributes much. But the portraits, which are
the most curious manifestations of the African spirit, owe their measure of success not a litde to native
originality. The ill-preserved coins still bear witness to fine impressions of Julius (Pl. II, 12), Sittius (Pl. VI
15, 16) and Augustus (Pl. VIII, 3), and the sketch of Ambatus (Pl. VI, 13) is expressive and vigorous!
But even here the treatment of the eye is lateral and rudimentary; the technique of other coins is frankly
barbarous (Pl. II, 4, 5) or incompetent (Pl. VI, 24). The official foundation coinage issued at Iol-Caesarea
provides interesting animal-studies (Pl. II, 16); Tingis, after several native efforts, produces a competent
full-faced head of Baal (Pl. VI, 11). In Tripolitana the Punic element predominates. The official currency
of Cyrenaica is mostly very crude, but the head of a divinity on the issues of Lollius is an accomplished
Hellenistic performance. The Alexandrian mint under Augustus shows various interesting types but dull
execution.
Characteristic of the Balkan provinces is a mild, neat, uninspired style, of which both Greek and Roman
constituents can be noted, the former usually predominating, e.g. on C A portraits of the region (Pl. IV,
11,13,14). Hellenistic heads of Augustus in the Euxine Pentapolis and of Zeus at Buthrotum (Pl. VIII, 20)
are in good taste; more interesting is a bust of Atratinus in the same manner at Sparta (Pl. XII, 3). A head
of Hortensius (Pl. II, 7), to which the condition of the two surviving specimens does not do justice, was
probably not much inferior. A Greek conception of Julius Caesar from his shortlived official mint at
Thessalonica (PL II, 3) is of quite exceptional merit and must rank very high among extant iconographic
records of the dictator. A severer version of him, also of merit, is provided by the foundation-issue of Corinth
(Pl. VIII, 19), which later portrays the domus Augusta (Pl. I X , 13-16). Roman influences, and flattering
adaptations to the physical type of Augustus, can be noted at Chalcis (Pl. X I I , 1, 2). Other portraits show
the incompetence of native work (Pl. VIII, 26 etc.). This region is one of the few to make some attempt
at reverse composition. Among the Greek cities Tanagra provides the three Graces, and Nicopolis a
sea-fight. Hortensius uses the Roman devices of plough, yoke and vexillum with streamers flying in the
wind (Pl. II, 8), and, by faulty co-ordination, his foundation-issue at Dium shows just such a vexillum being
trampled on by Diana Baphyra (Pl. I X , 18). At Pella appears a sketch of the town-walls (Pl. I X , 19).
Asia is sufficiently extensive and variegated for its several regions to have characteristics that enable
a fairly close attribution of uncertain coins within the province. In Mysia-Troas the Greek issues are
generally very small and feeble: heads of Antiochus at Miletopolis (Pl. X I , 60) and Augustus at Cyzicus
are interesting but not competent. Characteristic of local technique is the portrait of the 'Capricorn'
coinage (Pl. IV, 32); the 'colonist' issues in this region include nothing of note. The colonial coinages
soon after Philippi provide some curiosities, such as a less refined adaptation of the Macedonian head of
Julius (Pl. II, 3) at Alexandria Troas (Pl. VIII, 5), another version of the dictator at Lampsacus (Pl. VIII, 6),
and a ploughing scene in perspective at the same mint. Some portraits of Octavian and Agrippa at Parium
show a mixture of Greek and Roman motifs. Ionian art achieves some portraits on the CA coinage which
are among the best products of the time (Pl. Ill, 29, Pl. IV, 1), and include numerous spirited variations
on the theme of the 'cow' denarii portraits (Pl. Ill, 28). Elaea (Pl. X , 57) and Clazomenae (Pl. XI, 44)
strike an even more idealistic note, and Erythrae improves on the heroic Augustan type (Pl. XI, 3*)>
perhaps after the princeps* death. Other portraits are not very skilful, except one of Cicero pro cos. at Mag-
nesia (Pl. I X , 32). In Caria barbaric tendencies are noticeable, and Greek work is usually undistinguished;
a series of portraits at Alabanda, however, includes some of considerable merit (Pl. X I , 54, 55, 5 > 57>
6

and a high standard is maintained at Rhodes. Lydian work is generally confined to inferior Graecise
1
Cf. Albertini, l.c p. 487.
 A P P E N D I X 11 479
copies of Roman models, but Nysa provides two unusual renderings of Octavian (Pi. X I , 40, 41). In
Phrygia reverse-types are as usual stiff and characterless, but the portraits show a better average of taste
than those of any other district. An original creation of Hierapolis is the 'Young god' version of Augustus
(pi. X I , 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18). Fabius Maximus at the same mint (Pi. X I , 58) and Pythes at Laodicea
(Pi. X I , 61) have personality. Characteristic of the region is a mature Hellenistic idealism, best seen in
the numerous adaptations of the 'Patricia' type of head (e.g. Pi. X , 69-72, Pi. X I , 1, 7). Roman influence
is lacking; the Phrygian issues of the Commune Asiae (Pi. X I I , 33) may show barbarian tendencies.
The remaining parts of Asia Minor mostly have styles which are distinguishable at least within certain
broad limits. The modified Hellenism of the north coast is best expressed by the 'colonist' pieces which
can be attributed to Bithynia-Pontus. The colony of Sinope uses a coarse and primitive style without
Greek elements (e.g. Pi. VIII, 13); at Apamea there is a neat and sober Romanism (Pi. VIII, 15, 16, 17)
with certain traits shared by other Bithynian cities. The heads of Pulcher at that city (Pi. VIII, 14) and
Thorius at Nicaea (Pi. XII, 9) are unsuccessful; but the coinage of an earlier proconsul, Pansa, provides
an admirable portrait of Caesar (Pi. XII, 8). In the province of Galatia barbaric traits predominate, even
on the official currency of Basila (Pi. IV, 22, 23). Lycian art is imitative (e.g. Pi. XII, 31), Pamphylian
non-existent (Pi. XII, 12, 15). Stranger is the mixture of elements at the Roman colonies—as at Antioch
in Pisidia (Pi. VIII, 12) and Lystra (Pi. VIII, 10, n ) . The foundation-issue of the latter colony in the
'forties B.C. is remarkable for an extraordinary feat of realistic portraiture—the head of Rutilus (Pi. VIII, 8).
A contrast in styles is provided by a fine portrait at Mallus in Cilicia (Pi. X I I , 18). One of the aesthetic
curiosities of the period is the strong individuality maintained by the official mint in Cyprus (Pi. I l l , 17,
IV, 8, 24, 25). The output of the two cities in Crete, Cnossus (Pi. VIII, 18) and Cydonia (Pi. XII, 7), is
of execrable quality, with the exception of a few Hellenised portraits at the former.
Research would be most rewarded in the Syrian region, where numismatic styles are as unusual, mixed
and obscure as those in other mediums. Antioch is the centre at which Hellenism is most competent
and from which it radiates: Antiochene local and official issues (Pi. I l l , 21, 22) have characteristic Graeco-
Roman versions of Augustus. A more original and sympathetic study of the princeps, however, is afforded
by the official mint of Regulus at Sidon (?) (Pi. IV, 21) and its imitator at Balanea (Pi. X I I , 20). The
earliest issues of Berytus, however, are strangely devoid of Greek influence. Strzygowski might also
discern native and oriental influences of various kinds at Orthosia (Pi. X I I , 21), Damascus (ibid. 22),
Ascalon (ibid. 24) and Petra (ibid. 25). No less striking and diverse are the techniques of various un-
identifiable SC mints (Pi. Ill, 16, 18, 20, cf. 24, 25), the S C - C A mint (Pi. Ill, 19, IV, 6), an AVGVSTVS
mint (Pi. IV, 7), and Sidon (?) its copier (Pi. IV, 15, 17). See also Pi. I, 19 (Victory) and Pi. I X , 23
(Antony).
Epigraphy is virtually useless as a guide. It is true that African inscriptions are generally large and
coarse, Bithynian cramped and meagre, etc., but there is no uniformity. Nor are individual letters more
helpful, except in rare cases. A certain evolution in the letter P can be noted at Emporiae, but retrogressions
are frequently found. G appears in a curious form in Mysia (Pi. IV, 32) and Syria (Pi. I l l , 19, IV, 6);
it is often indistinguishable from C. Early forms of L may occur at Paestum and Turris Libisonis. As an
aid to chronology, Sigma is disappointing: taken all in all, there is a general tendency to the square form,
but variations occur from city to city and even from coin to coin. Punctuation is very unreliable, but
only at Emporiae are dots inserted, as a decorative motif, in the middle of words. Monograms and ligatures
are ingenious and arbitrary often to the point of insolubility (p. 494).
480

ABBREVIATIONS

AA. Archaologischer An^eiger. CIL. Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

Abbott and Municipal Administration in the CJ. Classical Journal.
Johnson. Roman Empire. CP. Classical Philology.
Abh. Ahhandlungen. CQ. Classical Quarterly.
A J A. American Journal of Archaeology. CR. Classical Review.
A J P. American Journal of Philology. CW. Classical Weekly.
Annali dell' Instituto di Corre-
Ann. dell' Inst. spondent archeologica. Delgado. Nuevo Metodo de Clasificacidn
Imhoof-Blumer, Antike Griechische de las medallas autonomas* de
Ant. GM. Munien. Espana.
Mitteilungen des deutschen archaolo- Dir. ep. Ruggiero, Dvrionario epigrafico.
Ath. Mitt. gischen Instituts, Athen. Abt.
Eckhel, DN. Doctrina Numorum.
BB. Berliner Blatter fiir Mux?-, Siegel-, EHR. English Historical Review.
und Wappenkunde. ES. Economic Survey of Ancient Rome.
BCH. Bulletin de correspondence hel-
Unique. Feldm. Blume, Lachmann und Rudorff,
BGU. Agyptische Urkunden aus den Schriften der romischen Feld-
Museen {« Berlin, Griechische
Urkunden.
BJ Bonner Jahrbucher. Gabrici. Atti della reale accademia di science,
Blanchet, TraitL Traiti des monnaies gauloises. lettere e belle arti di Palermo
BMB. Berliner Muniblatter. 1926.
BMC. British Museum Catalogues Ganter. Die Provin{ialverwaltungderTrium-
(Greek). virn, Diss. Strassburg, 1912.
BMC. Imp. Ditto {Imperial, Augustus unless Gardthausen. Augustus und seine Zeit.
stated). GGA. Gbttingische Gelehrte An\eigen.
BMCR. Ditto {Republic). GM. Imhoof-Blumer, Griechische Mun-
Bolin, Fynden. Fynden of Romerska Mynt i det fria ien.
Germanien. GRM^k. Imhoof-Blumer, Zur griechischen
Bosch, KM. Die Kleinasiatische Munien der und romischen Munikunde.
romischen Kaiserreit. Gsell. Histoire ancienne de I'Afrique du
Boutkowski, Dictionnaire numismatique. Nord.
DN.
Broughton. 'The Romanisarion of Africa Pro- Hammond; The Augustan Principate.
consularis' (Johns Hopkins Univ. Hatzfeld. Les trafquants itaUens dans V Orient
Studies, NS. v, 1929). helUnique.
Head, HN. Historia Numorum.
CA. Conference Augustee (Pubblica\wni Heiss. Monnaies antiques de I'Espagne.
dell* Universita Cattolica del Hill. 'The coinage of Hispania Tarra-
S. Cuore, Sc. stor. Ser. v, xvn, conensis ', Numismatic Notes and
1939)- Monographs (NNM), L, 1933-
CAH. Cambridge Ancient History. Holm. Geschichte Siciliens in Alterthurn.
Cat. Catalogue. Hu. Macdonald, Catalogue of the Hun-
CIG. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. terian Collection (Glasgow).
 ABBREVIATIONS 481
Hiibner, MLI. Monumenta Linguae Ibericae. MJSEA. Memorias de la Junta Superior de
HZ. Historische Zeitung. Excavaciones y Antiguedades.
M. Mys. Imhoof-Blumer, Die Antiken Miin-
IG. Inscriptions Graecae. ien Mysiens.
Inscriptions Graecae ad Res Ro- MNE. Memorial Numismdtico Espahol.
IGRR. manas Pertinentes. Mommsen, Das romische Miin^wesen.
Dessau, Inscriptions Latinae Se- Miw.
ILS. lectae. Mommsen, Res Gestae Divi Augusti.
RGDA.
JEA. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. Mommsen, Das romische Staatsrecht.
JUS. Journal of Hellenic Studies. St. R.
Cities of the Eastern Roman Pro- Muensterberg, Numismatische Zeitschrift.
Jones, CERP. vinces. Beamtennamen.
The Greek City from Alexander to Muensterberg, Numismatische Zeitschrift.
Jones, GC. Justinian. Kaisernamen.
JRS. Journal of Roman Studies. Muller. Numismatique de Tancienne Afrique,
Jullian, TP. Les transformations politiques de
Tltalie sous les Empereurs ro- NC. Numismatic Chronicle.
Nestle, Funde. Funde antiker Miinien im Konig-
reich Wiirttemberg.
KM. Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiatische Newby. A Numismatic Commentary on the
Miin^en. Res Gestae of Augustus.
Kar. M. Imhoof-Blumer, Karische Miinien. NG. Die Miinien Nordgriechenlands.
Kornemann. Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realencycl- NNM. Numismatic Notes and Mono-
opadie, 11, 511 ff., s.v. colonia. graphs.
Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum tributim dis- NZ. Numismatische Zeitschrift.
Imp. criptum.
Phil. Woch. Philologische Wochenschrift.
Lenormant. La monnaie dans Vantiquite\ PIR. Prosopographia Imperii Romani.
Levi. Ottaviano Capoparte. von Premer- Vom Werden und Wesen des
Liebenam, Forschungen {ur Verwaltungsge- stein. Prin^ipats (Ab/u Munchen, ph.-
Legaten. schichte des romischen Kaiser- hist. Abt., N.F. XV, 1937).
reichs: Die Legaten. PW. Pauly-Wissowa-Kroll, Realency-
Lyd. S. Imhoof-Blumer, Lydische Stadt- clopadie.
munien.
CIA. Quaderni Augustei.
Mionnet, Descriptions de midailles QAS. Quaderni Augustei (studi stranieri).
antiques grecques et romaines.
McFayden. The title Imperator. Raillard. Die Anordnungen des M. An-
M. and S. Mattingly and Sydenham, Roman tonius im Orient, Diss. Zurich,
Imperial Coinage. 1894.
MAPS. Memoirs of the American Philo- Rb. Revue beige de numismatique.
sophical Society. Rec. Waddington, Babelon and Reinach,
Marquardt, Die romische Staatsverwaltung. Recueil gineral des monnaies
St. V. grecques d*Asie Mineure.
Mattingly, RC. Roman Coins. RG. Res Gestae Divi Augusti.
MBNGW. Monatsblatter der numismatischen Rice Holmes, The Architect of the Roman Empire.
Gesellschaft in Wien. Architect.
MG. Imhoof-Blumer, Monnaies grecques. R. it. Rivista italiana di numismatica.
Mitt. Mitteilungen. Rn. Revue numismatique.
482 ABBREVIATIONS
Rom. Mitt. Mitteilungen des deutschen archao- Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crete ancienne.
logischen Instituts, Rdmische Abt. Crete.
Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Svoronos, Nouiauora TOO Kporrovs TCOV flto-
SEH. Roman Empire. Ptolemies. Aeuoclcov.
RS. Revue Suisse de numismatique Syme, RR. The Roman Revolution.
(Schwei^erische Numismatische
Rundschau). TAPA. Transactions of the American Philo-
logical Association.
S. Supplement.
Sav.Z. Zeitschrift der Savigny Stiftungfur UCPH. University of California Publications
Rechtsgeschichte. in History.
SB. Sit[ungsberichte.
SBK. Schriften der Balkankommission. Vives. Vives y Escudero, La moneda his-
Schulze. Die romischen Eigennamen (Abh. pdnica.
Gottingen, N.F. v, 5, 1904).
Sestini, Descriiione d'alcune medaglie greche Wad. Babelon, Inventaire de la Collection
Fontana. del museo del Sig. C. d* O. Waddington.
Fontana. Weber. Forrer, Catalogue of the Weber
Sestini, Ditto, del museo Hedervariano. Collection.
Hedervar. Willers, Geschichte der romischen Kiipfer-
Sherwin-White. The Roman Citiienship. Geschichte pragung.
Smith, DA. Dictionary of Antiquities. WMK. von Schrotter, Worterbuch der
Stevenson, Roman Provincial Administration. Miinikunde.
RPA.
Sutherland, The Romans in Spain. ZfN. Zeitschrift fur Numismatik.
RIS.
 483

1
SOURCES

A. ANCIENT

1. L A T I N WRITERS
pseudo-Acro ap. Hor. Carmina. Gellius, Noctes Atticae.
Aelius Gallus (Fest.). Geographus Ravennas.
Agennius Urbicus ap. Frontin. de controv. agr. Hadrian (Gellius).
Albertus Magnus (ed. Ven.). Hieronymus, Chronica Eusebii. (Helm).
Albucius (Suet.). Hirtius [Caesar], Bellum Alexandrinum, Bellum
Asconius on Cic. Gallicum vm.
pseudo-Asconius on Cic. Historia Augusta, see: Capitolinus, Lampridius,
Augustus, Res Gestae (RG.). Spartian.
Ausonius, Ordo nobilium urbiutn. Hyginus, De condicionibus agrorum; De limitibus
Bithynicus, A. Pompeius (Cic. Fam.). constituendis.
pseudo-Boethius, Demonstratio artis geometricae. Isidorus, Origines.
Brutus, Dec. Junius (Cic. Fam.). itinerarium Antonini (Parthey-Pinder).
Brutus, M. Junius (Cic). Jerome.
Caesar, Bellum Civile, Pro Bithynis (Gell.). Julius Honorius, Cosmographia (Gronov.).
[Caesar], Bellum Africanum. Justin, Epitome Trogi.
Capitolinus, Vita Antonini Pii. [Justinian], Institutions.
Cassiodorus, Chronica', variae. Lampridius, Vita Antonini Diadumeni.
Cassius (Cic. fam.). Latinus and Mysrontius, De locis suburbanis.
Catullus. laus Pisonis.
Cedrenius, Historia. Lentulus Spinther, P. Cornelius ( C i c Fam.).
Cicero, Ad Atticum, Pro Balbo, Brutus, Pro Cluentio, liber coloniarum.
Pro Rege Deiotaro, De Domo sua, Ad Familiares, anon. ap. libr. coloniarum (MS. Arcerian.).
Pro Places, De Imperio Cn. Pompei, De Lege Livy.
Agraria, De Legibus, Pro Ligario, De Officiis, [Livy], Periochae.
Philippica, In Pisonem, Pro Plancio, Pro Quintio, Lucan, Pharsalia.
De Republica, Pro Scauro, Pro Sestio, Pro Sulla, Macrobius, Saturnalia.
Pro Vatinio, In Verrem. Martial, Epigrams.
Claudius (Dessau, ILS.). Martianus Capella, Encyclopaedia.
Columella, De re rustica. Mela, De chronographia.
Dicuilus, De mensura orbis terrae. Nepos, Atticus.
Digesta. Orosius, Historia.
Donatus (Aelius), ap. Ter. Adelph. Ovid, Amores, Fasti, ex Ponto, Tristia.
Donatus (Claudius), Vita Vergilii. Papinian (Dig.),
Felix Malleolus, De nobilitate et rusticitate. passio S. Theodoti Ancyrani.
Festus, De verborum significatu. Paulus, Sententiae (and Dig.).
Florus, Bella omnia. Pliny jun., Epistulae, Panegyricus.
Frontinus, De condicionibus agrorum, De contro- Pliny sen., Historia Naturalis.
versiis, De aquaeductibus, Urbis Romae. Proculus (Dig.).
Fronto, Ad amicos. Quintilian, Institutio oratorio.
Gaius, Institutions. Rufus, Sex., Breviarium.

1
For collections of coins, see Preface.
484 SOURCES
Seneca jun., Ad Helviam, De ira, Naturales Symmachus, Epistulae.
Quaestiones. tabula Peutingeriana (Miller).
Seneca sen., Suasoriae, Controversiae. Tacitus, Annates, Historiae.
Servius ap. Verg. Aen., Eel. Ulpian (Dig.), De censibus.
Siculus Flaccus, De condicionibus agrorum. Valerius Maximus.
Silius Italicus, Punica. Varro, De lingua latina (Gell.).
Sisenna. Velleius Paterculus.
Solinus Polyhistor, Collectanea. vita Vergilii (Reifferscheid).
Spartian, Vita Hadriani; Vita Aelii. Vitruvius, De architectura.
Statius, Silvae. Vopiscus, Vita Taciti.
Suetonius, De Vita Caesarum, De viris illustribus.

2. GREEK WRITERS

Acts of the Apostles. Lydus, Laurentius, De magistratibus reipublicae

Aeschines. Romanae.
Anecdota (Bekker). Malalas, Lexicon Chronicon (Dindorf).
Appian, Bellum Civile, Historia Romana, Mith. Menander Rhetor (Heeren).
Aristotle, Rhetorica. Michael Syrus, Chronicon (Chabot).
Artemidorus of Ephesus (Onirocritae). Nicolaus Damascenus, De vita Caesaris; De vita
Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium. sua; fragmenta.
Demosthenes. Pausanias.
Dio Cassius, Historia Romana. Perizonius.
Dio Chrysostom. Philo, Legatio ad Gaium.
Diodorus, Historia. Plutarch, Reipublicae gerendae praecepta; Vitae.
Dioscorides, De materia medica. Pollux, Onomasticon.
Epictetus, Dissertationes. Polybius.
Eusebius, Chronicon. Porphyrius (fragm. Hist. Graec).
Herodian, Historia. Procopius, De Aedificiis, De Bella Vandalico.
Herodotus. Ptolemy.
Hierocles. Strabo.
Josephus, Antiquitates Judaicae, Bellum Judai- Suidas, Lexicon.
cum. Syncellus (Georgius) (Dindorf).
Lucian, Alexander. Synesius.
Luke, St. Zonaras, Lexicon.

3. HEBREW WRITERS

Bab. Kiddush (quoted by Heichelheim). M. Maaser Scheni (quoted by Heichelheim).

4. A R A B WRITERS

Al-Jaqubi, Kitab-el-Bolddn (quoted by Muller).

 SOURCES 485

5. ICONOGRAPHIC SOURCES

politan), Paris, Parma, Pesto, Rome (Lateran),

a. Public Collections.
Rome (Torlonia), Vatican, Vienna.
Aachen Cathedral, Amsterdam (Allard Pierson),
Aquileia, Athens, Berlin, Carthage (Lavigerie),
b. Private Collections.
Copenhagen, Copenhagen (Thorvaldsen), Corinth,
Florence, Hague, Leningrad, Lepcis, London Beverley, Evans, Hope-Masham, Lansdowne, Rossie
(British Museum), Naples, New York (Metro- Priory, Sambon.

6. E P I G R A P H I C SOURCES

Abhandlungen des archaologisch-epigraphischen Semi- Inscriptiones Latinae selectae (Dessau) (ILS.).

nares der Universitdt Wien. Inscriptiones regni Neapolitani Latinae.
Africa italiana. Inscriptions antiques de Lyon (Boissieu).
AGnvS. Inscriptions de Delphes (Wescher and Foucart).
An/tales du Service des Antiquitis de l'£gypte. Journal of Roman Studies (Hill and Sandars) (JRS.).
L'Annie ipigraphique. Latin Historical Inscriptions (Rushforth).
Le antichitd pestane (Bamonte). Milanges d'epigraphie et d'archiologie.
Archaologisch-epigraphische Mitteilungen. Monumenta Linguae Ihericae (Hiibner, MLL).
Atti della Societa Italiana per il Progresso delle Orientalistische Literatur^eitung.
Science (Marzullo). Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae (OGIS.).
Bulletin de correspondance hellinique (BCH.). Ph6nv(ische Studien (Levy).
Bulletin ipigraphique. Recueil a inscriptions igyptiennes.
11

Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (CIG.). Ripertoire d'epigraphie grecque.

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL.). Ripertoire d'epigraphie simitique.
Corpus Inscriptionum Rhenanarum. Res Gestae Divi Augusti (RG.).
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum (CIS.). Revue ipigraphique.
Cyprische Inschriften (Vogu£). Storia della Lucania (VAntonini).
Denkschrift der Wiener Akademie (1911). Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (SEG.).
Documenti antichi dell* Africa italiana. Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (Dittenberger)
Edicts of Cyrene, Rhosus etc. (and literature). (SIG.).
Epkemeris epigrapkica. Voyages archiologiques (Waddington and Lebas).
Pontes luris Romani (Bruns). Wolfe Expedition (Sterrett).
Inschriften von Pergamon. Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertums-
Inschriften von Priene. kunde.
Inscriptiones Confoederationis Helveticae Latinae Agyptische Urkunden aus den Museen %u Berlin,
(Zurich Mitt., Bd. 9). Griechische Urkunden (BGU.).
Inscriptiones Graecae (IG.). Amherst Papyri.
Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas pertinentes Oxyrhynchus Papyri.
(IGRR.). Turin Papyri.
Inscriptiones Latinae selectae (Orelli). Tabula Peutingeriana.
486 SOURCES

B. M O D E R N

1. WORKS O N LOCAL HISTORY

(Note. Works on the Roman constitution are listed

in the relevant footnotes in Part I V , q.v.)

PW. ss. w. cities etc.

Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration in Chatelain, Bibliotheque de Vicole des hautes itudes
the Roman Empire. 1908 (colonia Arausio).
Abel, Revue biblique, 1938 (eras). Christ (F.), Tiibinger Beitrdge iur Altertumswissen-
Adcock, CAH. ix (Julius). schaft, 1938 (pater urbium).
Alfoldi, ZfN. X L , 1930 (libertas). Collart, Philippes, Ville de Macedoine.
Babelon (E.), Carthage. Cuntz, Jahrbucher fur classische Philologie, Suppl.
Barth, De Asylis Graecis (Diss. Strassburg, 1888). XVII, 1890 (sources); Jahreshefte des oster-
Barthel, Zur Geschichte der romischen Stddten in A frica. reichischen archdologischen Institutes in Wien, 1929
Beaudouin, Revue gdnirale du droit, de la legislation, (prosopographical); Klio, vi, 1906 (Sicily).
et de lajurisprudence, 1896 (colonies and municipia). Degrassi, Rivista difilologia, 1938 (magistrates).
BelochfDieBevdlkerungdergriechisch-rdmischenWelt. Dessau, Hermes, 1884 (eras, dues); Klio, vm, 1912
Bernardi, Athenaeum, 1938 (suffragium). (double communities).
Bersanetti, Bollettino di filologia classica, 1936 Detlefsen, Philologus, 1870 (colonia Nabrissa).
(Latinitas). Digonnet, Orange antique.
Biondi, Annuario della reale Universita di Catania, Dorsch, De civitatis Romanae apud Graecos pro-
1928-9 (libertas). pagatione (Diss. Breslau, 1886).
Bosch, Kleinasiatische Miavren, I , 2. Dussaud, Revue numismatique, 1908 (eras).
Bouchier (E.S.), A short history of Antioch', Sardinia Ensslin, Gnomon, 1934 (worship of Antony).
in Ancient Times. Esperandieu, Gaule romaine.
Box, JRS. 1932 (prosopographical). Fluss, PW. (2 Reihe), I I , 952 (Sebasteia).
Brett, A J A. 1937 (eras). Fraccaro, Geografia, xvm, 1930 (censuses).
Broughton, CJ. 1935 (Caesarea); ES. iv (Asia); Fuchs, Der geistige Widerstand gegen Rom.
Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical Fiirst, Die Bedeutung der Auctoritas (Diss. Marburg,
and Political Science (Africa); TAP A. 1935 1934).
(consistentes). Gage, Byiantion, 1936 (restitutor).
Brusin, Aquileia nostra. Gauckler, Bulletin de la sociiti nationale des anti-
Buckland, Revue historique de droit francais et quaires de France, 1898 (conditor).
Stranger, 1934 (cives and peregrini). Gelzer, Frankfurter Universitdtsreden, 1924 (muni-
Busolt, Jahrbucher fur classische Philologie, Suppl. cipes); PW. xn, 940 (Latium).
VII (autonomia). Ginzer, Handbuch der mathematischen und tech-
Cagnat, Revue ipigraphique, 1913 (coloniae Con- nischen Chronologie. *
cordiae). Gnadinger, De Graecorum magistratibus eponymts
Calder, JRS. 1913 (colonia Antiochia in Pisidia). (Diss. Halle, 1892).
Calderini, Rendiconti del Reale Istituto Lombardo di Goodfellow, Roman Citizenship (Diss. Bryn Mawr,
science e lettere (sc.-mor. e stor.), 1931 (census). 1930).
Cantor, Die romischen Agrimensoren. Graindor, Athenes sous Auguste.
Carcopino, Revuehistorique,\^v) (coloniesin Africa). Grenier, ES. ill (Gaul).
Cary, JRS. 1929, 1937 (legislation of Julius). Gsell, Revue historique, CLVI (Carthage).
Chapot, La province romaine proconsulate d'Asie. Hahn, Rom und Romanismus im griechisch-rdmischen
Charlesworth, Trade Routes and Commerce of the Osten.
Roman Empire; Harvard Theological Review f Halgan, Essai sur Vadministration des provinces
1935 (emperor-worship). sinatoriales.
 SOURCES 487
Hardy, Six Roman Laws; Some Problems in Roman (tribes); Sitiungsberichte der Akademie der Wissen-
History; Roman Laws and Charters; Three schaften in Wien (philos.-hist. Kl.), CLXXVII,
Spanish Charters; Journal of Philology, 1920 Abh. 4, 1916 (libertas); Gnomon, 1937 (Mace-
(Julius). . donian colonies); PW.ix, 2308 (Itinerarien).
Hartmann, De Exilio apud Romanos (Diss. Berlin, Kubler, PW. iv, 2319 (decurio); PW. xix, 639
(peregrinus).
1887).
Larsen, ES. iv (Greece and-Macedonia); CP. 1931
Hatzfeld, Les trafiquants italiens dans V Orient
(quinquennales perpetui).
hellinique.
Last, CAH. xi (libertas); JRS. 1932 (races).
Haywood, ES. iv (Africa).
Lecrivain, Revue historique, 1927 (military colonies).
Head, HN. p. 755 (Seleucids and cities).
Lenormant, La monnaie dans Vantiquite.
Heichelheim, ES. iv (Syria).
Liebenam, Stadteverwaltung im romischen Kaiser-
Heinen, Klio, 1911 (Emperor-worship).
reiche; Forschungen iur Verwaltungsgeschichte des
Heiss, Monnaies antiques de I'Espagne.
romischen Kaiserreichs; PW. v, 1798 (duoviri).
Heitland, Last words, etc.; Repetita.
McElderry, JRS. 1918 (magistrates, Latinitas).
Henze, De Civitatibus Liberis (Diss. Berlin, 1892).
Herzog, Gallia Narbonensis. Mantey, De gradu et statu quaestorum in municipiis
Heuss, Klio, Beih. xxxi, 1933 (libertas, postliminium). coloniisque (Diss. Halle, 1882).
Hill (Sir G. F . ) , NNM. L , 1933 (Hispania Tarra- Marquart, Die rdmische Staatsverwaltung.
conensis). Marzullo, Atti della Societal Italiana per il Progresso
Hoeppfner, Bulletin de la Faculti de Lettres de delle Science, 1932 (Marsyas, colonia Paestum).
VUniversiti de Strasbourg, 1931-2 (Liber pater). Merlin, Cinquieme Congres international d'archio-
Holm (A.), Geschichte Siciliens in Alterthum; Das logie, 1930 (double communities).
alte Catania. Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den ostlichen
Horn (H.), Foederati (Diss. Frankfurt, 1930). Provinfen.
Hiibner, MLI.; La Arqueologia de Espaha. Momigliano, Athenaeum, 1935 (Phoenician cities).
Hulsen, PW. iv, 1815 (curia). Mommsen, Provinces of the Roman Empire; Res
Hultsch, PW. iv, 875 (congiaria). Gestae divi Augusti; Gesammelte Schriften;
Jenison, The History of the Province of Sicily (Diss. Romisches Staatsrecht; Die romischen Feldmesser;
Columbia, 1919). Die Stadtrechte; Hermes, 1873 (consistentes), 1883
Jessen, PW. iv, 244 (eponymos). (coloniae Juliae), 1885 (colonia Zama), 1892
Jones (A. H . M.), CERP.; GC; Anatolian Studies (colonies and municipia), 1904 (autonomy);
to Buckler (1939). ZfN. 1875 (governors and cities).
Jordan, Marsyas auf dem Forum in Rom. Monceaux, De Communi Asiae Provinciae (Diss.
Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule; Les transformations Paris, 1885).
politiques de Vltalie sous les Empereurs romains; Mowat, Rn. 1902 (eponymy).
Revue des itudes anciennes, 1913 (Marsyas). Muensterberg, MBNGW. 1911, 1913; NZ.;
Keil, CAH. xi (Greek cities). Jahreshefte des bsterreichischen archaologischen
Kjellberg, Klio, 1921 (magistrates). Institutes in Wien, Beibl. xvm, 1915 (magistrates).
Kloesel, Libertas (Diss. Breslau, 1935). Muller, Numismatique de Vancienne Afrique.
Klotz, Phil. Woch. 1936 (libertas). Muttelsee, Untersuchungen iiber die Lex Julia muni-
Kornemann, PW. 11, 511 (colonia); PW. xvi, 570 cipalis (Diss. Freiburg, 1913).
(municipium); PW. XVIII, 708 (oppidum); PW. Neumann (J.), De quinquennalibus coloniarum et
Suppl. 1, 300 (civitas); in Gercke-Norden, municipiorum (Diss. Leipzig, 1892); PW. vi,
Einleitung in die Altertumswissenschaft, I I I , 2 2818 (foederati); HZ. 1917 (postliminium).
(libertas); QAS. iv, 1937 (libertas); Berliner Nissen, Pompeianische studien.
Studien fur classische Philologie und Archaologie, Nock, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 1930;
xiv, 1892 (consistentes). Gnomon, 1932; JHS. 1925 (Emperor-worship),
Kromayer, Hermes, 1896 (colonia Arausio). van Nostrand, ES. 111; UCPH. iv, 2,1916 (Spain).
Kubitschek, Imperium Romanum tributim dis- Pais, Storia della Sardegna e della Corsica; Memorie
criptum; Abhandlungen des archaologischen-epi- della Reale Accademia Naiionale dei Lincei (Cl.
graphischen Seminares der Universitat Wien. sc.-mor., stor.,fil.), vi, 1,1925 (colonies).
488 SOURCES
Pansa, R. it. 1909 (eponymy). Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes.
Paoli, Melanges d'archiologie et d'histoire, 1938 Schulz, Mnemosyne, 1937 (censuses).
(Marsyas). Schulze, Abh. Gottingen, N.F. v, 5, 1904 (prosopo-
Parker, CR. 1938 (magistrates). graphical).
Partsch, Africae veteris itineraria (Diss. Breslau, 1874). Scramuzza, ES. in (Sicily).
Petersen, Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie, 1853 Sebastian (A.), De patronis coloniarum atque muni-
(mensio). cipiorum Romanorum (Diss. Halle, 1884).
Pfister, PW. (2 Reihe), 1, 1061 (Rhomaia). Seston, Milanges de I'licole Francaise de Rome
Pisani, Annali della Reale Scuola Normale Superiore 1926-7 (Marsyas).
di Pisa, 1938 (municipia). Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship.
Poinssot, Comptes-rendus de VAcademic des Inscrip- Spehr, De summis magistratibus coloniarum atque
tions et Belles Lettres, 1915 (double communities); municipiorum (Diss. Halle, 1881).
Bulletin de la Sociiti Nationale des Antiquaires de Stevenson ( G . H.), CAH. x (colonisation); Roman
France, 1928 (municipium Caralis). Provincial Administration.
Prehn, PW. xi, 2083 (Ktistes). Strasburger, Gnomon, 1937 (Julius).
von Premerstein, PW. x, 1238 (ius Italicum); Smart Jones, EHR. 1931 (bureaucracy).
Sav. Z. 1922 (coloniae Juliae of Antony); Sav. Z. Sutherland, JRS. 1934 (Roman cities in Spain).
1931 (no pro-Greek policy). Syme, CQ. 1938 (double communities); CR. 1938
Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia; JRS. (colonia Philippi).
1914, 1916 (colonia Antiochia in Pisidia); Taylor ( L . R . ) , TAP A. 45 (Augustales); Divinity
Anatolian Studies to Buckler (1939). of the Roman Emperor.
Reid, Municipalities of the Roman Empire; JRS. Tellenbach, Forschungen iur Kirchen- und Geistes-
1915 (Julius). geschichte, vii, 1936 (libertas).
Reinach and Babelon (E.), Bull, du com. 1886 (muni- Tenney Frank, JRS. 1927 (Sicily); ES. 1 (Italy).
cipium Zitha). Tissot, Geographic de la province romaine d'Afrique.
Reinhold, CJ. 1938 (bureaucracy). Toutain, Milanges d'archiologie et d'histoire, 1896,
Riccobono, Annali del Seminario giuridico della 1898 (colonies and municipia).
Reale Universita di Palermo, 1936 (libertas). Viale, Atti del primo Congresso di Studi Romani, I ,
Ritschl, Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie, 1842 1930 (double communities).
(mensio). della Vida, Africa italiana, 1935 (Tripolitana).
Ritterling, PW. xn, 1186 (legio). de Visscher, Comptes-rendus de VAc* des Inscriptions
Robinson (D. M.), A J P. 1926 (deductio). et Belles Lettres, 1938,1939 (double citizenship).
Romanelli, Africa italiana, 1925; Rivista delle Volkmann, Miinchener Beitrdge iur Papyrusfor-
colonie italiane, 1929 (Tripolitana). schung, xxi, 1935 (jurisdiction); Neue Jahrbucher
Ronzevalle, Milanges de I'Universiti S. Joseph de fur Antike und deutsche Bildung, 1938 (self-
Beyrouth, 1934 (Heliopolis). government).
Rostovtzeff, Archiv fur Papyrusforschung, Beih. 1, Wachsmuth, Die Stadt Athen.
1910 (taxation); CAH. vn (Seleucids, Ptolemies). Waddington, Rn. 1867 (governors and cities).
Rouvier, Revue biblique, 1899 (eras). Walltafen, Die Einrichtung und kommunale Ent-
Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im romischen Italien. wicklung der romischen Proving Lusitanien.
Rudorff, Gromatische Institutionen. Walton, JRS. 1929 (prosopographical).
Ruggiero, Le colonie dei romani. Waser, PW. v, 2346 (eleutheria); PW. iv, 2010
Saflund, Skrifter utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom, (daimon).
iv, 1934 (Italian colonies). Weber (M.), Romische Agrargeschichte; Wirtschaft
Savigny, Vermischte Schriften. und GeseUschaft im romischen Reich.
Scharf, Neue Deutsche Forschungen, CLXXXV, 1938 Weickert, Klio, 1937 (Julius and libertas).
(prosopographical). Weiss, PW. x, 1231 (ius honorum).
Scheffer-Boichorst, Mitteilungen des Instituts fur West, A J A. 1926 (colonia Corinthus).
osterreichischen Geschichtsforschung, 1885 (Graec- Zumpt, Commenta epigraphica.
isation of colonies).
 SOURCES 489

1
2. REPORTS OF C O I N - F I N D S

Records on labels of collections; information from r jmismatists. Also:

Jahresbericht iiber das Realgymnasium in Magdeburg,
A. Periodicals. 1902-3, p. 19 (Sicily).
Abhandlungen und Berichte aus dent Museum fur Jahresberichte an die Mitgliedcr der Sinsheimer
Natur- und Heimatkunde in Magdeburg. Gesellschaft.
Acta et commentationes Universitatis Dorpatensis JEA.
(human:). JHS. 1914, p. 46 (S.W. Asia minor).
Annalen des Vereins fiir Nassauische Altertumskunde. JIAN. 1911, p. 222 (Cephallenia).
Annali delV Istituto di Correspondent Archeologica, JRS. 1911, p. 103 (el Centenillo).
p. 74 (Liria). Klio, 1914, pp. 200 ff. (Africa).
Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, 1910 Mimoires de la Societe" Archiologique du Midi de la
(Derek Maden). France.
Annuaire de la Sociiti de Numismatique, ill, 1868, Mimoires de la Sociiti d'Histoire de Geneve.
pp. 259, 279. Mitteilungen der antiquarischen Gesellschaft in Zurich.
Annual of the Palestine Exploration Fund. MJSEA.
Antiquaries' Journal. Neue Zeitschrift des Ferdinandeums in Salzburg.
An\eiger fiir Schweiierische Altertumskunde. Noti^ie degli Scavi di Antichitd.
Archaeological Report of the Egypt Exploration Fund. NC. 1914, pp. 3i2ff. (Pisidia); 1924, p. 14 (Cyprus);
Archaeologisch-historische Bijdragen. 1927, p. 381 (Magnesia ad Maeandrum).
Archaologische Zeitung, i87i,p. 180 (Aegina). Numismatic Circular, 1902, 5216 (M. Jouer a S.
Archeologo Portugues. Goussand).
Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientale. NNM. L X X X I , 1938, p. 22 (Gerasa).
Arquivos da Universidade de Lisboa. NZ. 1905, p. 37 (Asia minor); 1913 (Gaul); 1933,
Atti della Societd Italiana per ilprogresso delle Science. p. 56 (Carnuntum).
Bayerische Vorgeschichtsblatter. Numismatisches Literaturblatt, 1934, p. 2781.
Bericht der romisch-germanischen Kommission des Numiimaticheskago Svornika.
archaologischen Instituts. Nunu\matikai Koilony.
BB. iv, p. 27 (Smyrna). Oudheidkundige Mededeelingen uit's Rijksmuseum
Blatter fiir Miin^freunde, 1900, pp. 156f. (Sardinia) van Oudheden te Leiden.
Bonner Jahrbiicher. Prdhistorische Zeitschrift.
Bulletin de la Commission Archiologique de la Seine Programm des grossherioglichen Gymnasiums ^u
Infirieure. Maini.
Bulletin hispanique. Programm des koniglichen kaiserlichen Gymnasiums
Bullettino archeologico sardo. %u Boien.
Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale Publications de la Section des Sciences Historiques de
di Roma. Vlnstitut Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg.
Bullettino delV Istituto di Corresponden^a Archeologica. Recueil des notices et mimoires de la Sociiti archeo-
Corriere numismatico, 1911, p. 102 (Pompeii). logique du dipartement de Constantine.
Fundberichte aus Osterreich. Revue africaine.
Fundberichte aus Schwaben. Revue archeologique, 1903, p. 283 (Apt); 1904, p. 286
Glasnik Skopskog Nautnog Drustva. (M. S. Michel).
Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft fur lothringische Geschichte Rn. 1898, p. 629 (Cilicia).
und Altertumskunde. Rivista archeologica della provincia di Como.
Jahrbuch des Bernischen historischen Museums. Romisch-germanische Forschungen.
Jahrbuch fur Landeskunde von Niederdsterreich. Saalburg Jahrbuch.
1
Particulars are added to the titles when these d > not indicate the geographical origin of the finds.
490 SOURCES
Edwards (K. M.), Corinth (vi).
A. Periodicals (contd) Elmer, Catalogue of the Belgrade collection (MS.).
Schriften der Balkankommission (ant. Abt.). Evelein, Gids van het Rijksmuseum G.M. Kam te
Scoperte archeologiche fattesi neW isola di Sardegna. Nijmegen.
SB. Munchen, 1897, pp. 530, 533 (Cappadocia). Forrer, Strasbourg-Argentorate; Die keltische Numis-
Shifter utgivna av det Kongl. Humanistiska Vetens- matik.
kapssamfundet i Uppsala, xxix, 2, p. 49 (Vimina- Gjerstad, The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
cium). Goudard, Monographic des monnaies frappies d
Sonderschriften des bsterreichischen archaologischen Nimes.
lnstituts in Wien. Head, Historia Numorum, p. 786 (Smyrna, Hayling
Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft fur Anthro- Island).
pologic. Heiss, Monnaies antiques de VEspagne.
Verhandlungen des historischen Vereins fur Nieder- van Hoorn, Gids van het CentraalMuseum te Utrecht.
hayern. Kataloge West- und Siiddeutscher Altertumssamm-
Verhandlungen des historischen Vereins von Oberpfal%. lungen.
Viestnik Hrvatskoga Arheologickoga Drustva. Kunkel, Oberhessens vorgeschichtliche Altertiimer.
Vjestnik Kr. Hrvatsk-slav.-dalm. Arkiva. McDowell, Preliminary Report upon the Excavations
Westfalen. at Tell Umar (Iraq).
Zapiski Imp. Russk. Arch. Obschch. Maiuri and Jacopich, Clara Rhodos.
Zeitschrift des historischen Vereins fur Schwaben und della Marmora, Voyage en Sardaigne.
Neuburg. Maxe-Werly, £tat actuel de la numismatique remoise.
ZfN. 1884, p. 187 (Syria); 1900, pp. 40ft". (Vin- Mommsen, Die nordetruskischen Alphabete auf
donissa); 1901, p. 186 (Asia minor); 1904 Inschriften und Mtinien, p. 235 (Alps).
Jahresb. p. 1 (Preignan). Nestle (W.), Funde antiker Miinren im Konigreich
Wurttemberg.
B. Books. Noe, NNM.
Abramic, Fiihrer durch Poetovio. Oberhummer, Die Insel Cypern.
Archaologische Karte von Jugoslavien, Blatter Oberhummer and Zimmerer, Durch Syrien und
Kavadarci, Zagreb, Prilep-Bitolj. Kappadokien.
Bayer, Diario das primeiras viagens que fe% pelas Otschetof Archaeological Commission.
terras de Portugal. Pallmann, Die Pfahlbauten und ihre Bewohner.
Bell, Sardis (xi). Parura, La Sicilia antica.
Bellinger, Dura. Pichler, Repertorium der steierischen Mwv(kunde.
Bissinger, Funde rbmischer Mun^en im Grossher- Regling, Miinrfunde aus Pergamon.
logtum Baden. Reinach, Catalogue illustri du Musie des antiquitis
Blanchet, Traiti des monnaies gauloises; Les tresors nationales au chateau de S. Germain-en-Laye.
des monnaies romaines en Gaule. Ritterling, Das fruhromische Lager in Hofheim bei
Bolin, Fyndenav Romerska Myntidetfria Germanien. Taunus.
Bouchier (E. S.), Sardinia in Ancient Times. Ruggiero, Degli scavi di antichitd nelle province di
Boutkowski-Glinka, Dictionnaire numismatique, p. terraferma dell* antico regno di Napoli.
75 (Sillingy); p. 684 (Syria, Palestine). Schulten, Numantia.
BMC. Cyrenaica, Cyprus, Peloponnese; Imp. p. 115 Sestini, Descri^ione d*alcune medaglie greche del museo
(Black Sea), etc. delSig. C. d'O. Fontana, I , p. 126 (Cyrenaica).
Brusin, Gli scavi di Aquileia. Sterrett, The Wolfe Expedition.
Clerc and d'Agnel, Decouvertes archiologiques a. Sutherland, Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain.
Marseille. Teixeira de Aragao, Descripfao Historica das
Courby and Picard, Recherches archiologiques a moedas romanas (coll. Rey Luvr I).
Stratos d'Acarnanie. Toulmouche, Histoire archiologique de la ville de
Coutil, Inventaire des monnaies gauloises de la Seine- Rennes.
Infirieure. Ugolini, Albania antica.
Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum (Gaul). Westholm, Temples of Soli.
 SOURCES 49 1

3. OTHER N U M I S M A T I C WORKS

Rassegna monetaria.
A. Periodicals. Rassegna numismatica.
American Journal of Numismatics. Rb., Rn., RS., R. it.
Amtliche Berichte aus den koniglichen Kunstsamm- Studi e materiali di archeologia e numismatica.
lungen \u Berlin. Transactions of the International Numismatic Con-
Annuaire de la Sociiti francaise de numismatique. gress.
Archaologischer Anieiger. Transactions of the Yorkshire Numismatic Society.
Archivio storico per la Sicilia orientale. Zapiski imp. russk. arch. Obschch.
Arithuse. ZfN.
Atti della Reale Accademia di science, lettere e belle
arti di Palermo.
B. Books.
BB., SMB.
Blatter fiir Miinifreunde. Akerman, Ancient coins of cities andprinces (Hispania,
Bollettino del Circolo Numismatico Napolitano. Gallia, Britannia).
Bollettino di numismatica. Antiken Miinien Nordgriechenlands, Die.
Bulletin mensuel de numismatique et d'archiologie. Babelon (E.), Monnaies de la Ripublique romaine;
Corriere numismatico. Recueil etc., see Waddington.
Documenti inediti per servire alia storia dei musei Baldwin (A.), The coinage of Lampsacus.
d'ltalia. Barthelemy, Etude des monnaies gauloises frappies
Hesperia. en Poitou.
Historia. Bernhart, Handbuch \ur Miinjkunde der romischen
Jahrbiicher des Vereins von Alterthumsfreunden im Kaiser\eit.
Rheinlande. Blanchet, Traiti des monnaies gauloises', Manuel de
JEA., JHS., JIAN., JRS. numismatique francaise.
Klio. Borghesi, (Euvres; Memorie numismatiche . 2

Mimoires de la Sociiti d'archiologie et de numis- Bosch, KM.; Kaiserdaten auf Kleinasiatischen

matique de S. Pitersbourg. Miinien.
Mimoires de la sociiti francaise de numismatique et Botet y Siso, Noticia historica y arqueologica de la
d archiologie. antiga ciudad de Emporion.
MAPS. Boutkowski-Glinka, DN.
MNE. BMC. Imp., BMCR., BMCs.
Mitteilungen der numismatischenGesellschaftin Berlin. Caetano de Bern, Memorias historicas.
MBNGW. Caland, De nummis M. Antonii IHviri res gestas
Miin{studien. illustrantibus commentatio (Diss. Leyden, 1883).
Nomisma. Campaner y Fuertes, Numismdtica Balear.
NC. Caro, Chorografia del convento giuridico de Sevilla.
NNM. Cavedoni, Appendice al Saggio; Numismatica
Numismatica. Biblica.
Numismatica e science affini. Charrier, Description des monnaies de la Numidie et
Numismatickar. de la Mauritanie.
NZ. Chaugarnier-Moissenet, Numismatique gauloise.
Numismatisches Literaturblatt. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappies
Numiimaticheskago Svornika. sous Vempire romain.
Numiimatikai Koilony. Delgado, Nuevo metodo de clasificacidn de las
Quaderni Augustei. medallas autdnomas de Espana.
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Dieudonn6, Milanges numismatiques.
Palestine. Eckhel, DN.
492 SOURCES
Muller, Numismatique de Vancienne Afrique.
B. Books (contd) Newby, A Numismatic Commentary on the R es

Florez, Medallas de las colonias, municipios y pueblos Gestae of Augustus.

antigos de Espaha. Palosy, Discertacion sobra el theatro y circo di
Fraccia, Antiche monete siciliane. Sagunto.
Fritze, Miinqen von Pergamon. Pellerin, Recueil de mcdailles de peuples et de villes.
Froehlich, Notitia Elementaris Numismatum Anti- Pick, Die Miinikunde in der Altertumswissenschaft.
quorum. Riccio, Monete di famiglie romane.
Gaebler, v. Antihen Mtinien Nordgriechenlands. Robert ( C ) , Histoire generate de la province de
Garrucci, Le monete deW Italia antica. Languedoc.
Goudard, Monographic des monnaies frappies a. Rogers (E. E.), Ancient Coinage of Thessaly.
Nimes. Rostovtzeff, Svintsoveya Tessere.
Grotefend, Unedierte griechische und romische Sambon, Recherches sur les monnaies de la presqtfile
Mun%en. italique.
Harduin, Opera varia. de Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte;
Haym, Tresor britannique. Melanges de numismatique.
Head, HN. de Saussaye, Numismatique de la Gaule narbonnaise.
Hill (Sir G. F.), Coins of Ancient Sicily; Historical Segre, Metrologia e circolaiione degli antichi.
Roman Coins; Handbook of Greek and Roman Sestini, Descrv(ione di molte medaglie; Lettere e
Coins; Anatolian Studies to W. M. Ramsay. dissertajioni numismatiche; Descriiione d*alcune
Holm (A.), Geschichte Siciliens in Alterthum. medaglie greche del museo del Sig. C. d*0. Fontana,
Hubner, Monumenta Linguae Ibericae. ditto, del museo Hedervariano.
Imhoof-Blumer, Ant. GM.; M. Mys.; MG.; GM.; Stevenson, Dictionary of Roman Coins.
KM.; Kar. M.; Lyd.S.; GRM^k.; see also Sutherland, Coinage and Currency in Roman Britain.
Antiken Miin^en Nordgriechenlands; and Keller, Svoronos, Numismatique de la Crete ancienne ( I ) ;
Tier- und Pflan\enbilder auf Mun\en. NOUICTUOCTCC TOO Kporrovs TCOV rTToAeuocfcov.
Lambros, 'AvocypCKpfi TCOV voutauorrcov T % Kvpias Sydenham, The Spanish Mints of Augustus
(M. and S.).
Landolina-Paterno, Ricerche numismatiche sulV Torremuzza (Castelli), Siciliae populorum et urbium,
antica Sicilia. regum quoque et tyrannorum veteres nummi.
Lenormant, La monnaie dans Vandquiti. Vives y Escudero, La moneda hispdnica.
Lorichs, Recherches numismatiques. Vogt, Alexandrinische Mtinien.
Mattingly, RC; and Sydenham (M. and S.). Waddington, Babelon and Reinach, Rec; and
Maxe-Werly, Vitat actuel de la numismatique Lebas, Voyages archiologiques et Pastes des
remoise. provinces asiatiques.
Mayr, Die antiken Mun^en der Inseln Malta. Weber (L.), Charites.
Milne, The Development of Roman Coinage. Werlhof, Handbuch der griechischen Numismatik.
Mionnet, Description de mcdailles antiques grecques Willers, Geschichte der romischen Kiipferpragung.
et romaines. WMK.
Mommsen, M^w. Wruck, Die Syrische Provin(ialpragungvon Augustus
Morelli, Familiarum Romanarum numismata. bis Trajan.
Muensterberg, Kaisernamen, Beamtennamen, vide Zobel de Zangroniz, Commentationes philologicae in
NZ. honorem Th. Mommsen.
 493

KEY TO SPECTROGRAMS

The spectrographic analyses undertaken for me by the British Non-Ferrous Metals Research Association
were carried out as follows:
The spectrum of the spark between a pointed upper electrode of pure copper and the edge of the coin
as lower electrode was photographed on an Ilford Zenith Plate, with a Hilger medium-size quartz
spectrograph ( E . 34). No condensing lens was used, the spark being placed at a distance of 20 cms.
from the spectrograph slit. With a slit width of 0.01 mm. an exposure time of 90 seconds was given.
The standard Hilger equipment was used for the production of the spark, the capacity being 0.006/xF,
the self-inductance 0.06 mH. and the spark gap 3 mm.

The quantities of zinc, tin and lead revealed by the spectrograph are graded in the following list from
'A' to * G \ Smaller constituents, such as iron, silver, nickel, etc., which are shown by the spectrograph,
are here omitted since they are irrelevant to metrology. ' A ' represents a quantity of c. 23-15%; ' G '
signifies the presence of traces only. Orichalcum coins contain ' A ' - ' C ' of zinc.

MINT ZINC TIN LEAD MINT ZINC TIN LEA

1 Nemausus (I. 1)
— B F 36 S C (3) — B F
2 Nemausus (I. 2)
— c D 37 S C (7)
— B G
3 Nemausus (II)
— c D 38 S C (as)
— C F
4 Nemausus (III)
— A F 39 Colonist G B B
5 Puteoli (?)
— c A 40 Colonist
— B C
5 A Puteoli (?) E c A 41 Colonist
— C D
6 Arausio (?)
— A G 42 Colonist
— C C
7 Vienna
— A C 43 Panormus (Ti.) C/D B C
8 Ancyra (Basila) (Ti.)
— C C 44 Panormus (Ti.)
— C C
9 Macedonia (Primus?)
— D A 45 Agrigentum
— B C

E—
10 Arelate (?) G D A 46 Agrigentum B B
11 Cyprus
— B A 47 Haluntium (Seius) /F B C
12 Macedonia (?) ( Q ) C G F 48 Panormus (Silva) (Ti.)
— B C
13 Urso
— B B 49 Celsa G C B
14 Celsa
— A A 50 Ilici G C B
15 Amphipolis
— B F 51 Saguntum
— D D
16 SC (1) G C C 52 Saguntum (Libo)
— D D
17 Pergamum (Augustus) B E F 53 Saguntum (Ti.)
— B C
18 A V G V S T V S
— D E 54 Corduba (Cn. Juli.)
— B C
19 A V G V S T V S
— — G 55 Utica(Ti.)
— D D
20 A V G V S T V S
21 Amisus
—
G
C
A
G
E
56
57
D D P P (Ti.)
Aezanis (Cl.)
— B
E
E
D
G
22 SC (3 A)
— C G 58 Hierapolis (Cl.-Aug.)
— C F
23 Caralis
— B A 59 Hierapolis (young)
— B D
24 Gaul (eagle)
25 Gaul (bull)
B
A
G
E D
F 60
61
Ilium (Aug.)
Lampsacus (Ner.-Aug.)
.—
E/F
C
B
D
B
26 Cyprus (A. Plautius)
27 Cyprus (A. Plautius)
E
G
A
B A
B 62
63
Smyrna (Aug.)
Smyrna (Cal.)
— A
B
D
C
F
28 Rome (Celer)
30 Spain (shield)
A
E
D
B A
F 64
65
Philippi
—
Pella ( C . Aquinus P. Baebius) —
E
B
F
B
31 A V G V S T V S E A B 66 'Hispanorum'
— B C
32 C A A E F 67 Paestum ( Q . Tre.)
— B F
33 Smyrna G B E 68 Paestum (M. I . Ne.)
— B D
34 Cyprus (27 B.C)
— A A 69 Paestum ( Q . Egn. M. Oct.)
— C G
35 Emerita (Carisius)
— E D
494

KEY TO MONOGRAMS AND LIGATURES

i rp ^ ^
h page 20 2, page 26 3 > W 28 At page €6

mi vw PR
ww
J , W , 0
° 7.WI8S « , w a a ,

FAAAfel ^ -0< & &

12, ^ 377 13, page 394
w (») («)
I 4 > ^ ^ %
 495

INDICES

I . FINDS
*Acireale 46 Bucharest 101 n. 19, 105 n. 16
Adalia 101 n. 16, 105 n. 12 •Budapest 71 n. 7
Agram, see Zagreb Bulgaria, uncertain site 93 n. 2, 101 n. 18, 105 n. 6,
Agrigento 29 n. 13, 299 n. 8 106 n. 2, i n n. 14, 282, 376 n. 1
Ain el Hout 298 n. 1 Bursa 111 n. 17, 113 n. 8, 256
Ajia Irini (Cyprus) 80 n. 4
Albania, uncertain site 116 n. 13 Cadiz 172, 298 n. 2, 299 n. 4
Alcacer do Sal 23 Cagliari 92 n. 8, 93-4 n. 11, 116 n. 11, 149, 299 n. 7
Algeria, uncertain site 60, 71 n. 13, 93-4 n. 11 Cahaignes 71 n. 1
Amman 99 n. 12 Calcar 71 n. 2
Anatolia, uncertain site 11, 63, 92 n. 14, 101 n. 14, n. 15, Campania, uncertain site 47
102 n. 8, 105 n. 11, n. 22, 111 n. 17, 238, 244 n. 16, Cannstatt 132 n. 11
251, 298 n. 12, 376 n. 1 (see also Dardanelles) Cappadocia, see Anatolia
Andeer 71 n. 4 Capua 7
Andernach 71 n. 2, 116 n. 4 Carthage 92 n. 10, 299 n. 9
Antakya (Antioch) 100 Castagnet 71 n. 1
Antas 205 Catania 29 n. 13
Apt 70 n. 7 Caudebec-les-Elbeuf 71 n. 1
Aquae Calidae 105 n. 6 Cavder Hissar 105 n. 4
Aquileia 71 n. 9, 92 n. 6, 107 n. 16 el Centenillo 134
Aquitaine, uncertain site 7 Cephalonia 66
Arbus 92 n. 8 Chantenay 49 n. 14
Argos 298 Chatillon 116 n. 4
Aries 70 n. 7, 116 n. 5, 299 n. 5 Chester 71 n. 12, 77 n. 1
Austria, uncertain site 105 n. 7 Chur 92 n. 15
Autun 71 n. 1 Cilicia, see Anatolia
*Avignon 70 n. 7, 72 n. 1, 107 n. 7, 116 n. 5 Cirenaica, uncertain site 57, 138 n. 8
Citania de Trona 123 n. 4
Baden (Aargau) 71 n. 2 Coblenz 71 n. 2
Baden (Baden) 116 n. 7 Colmar 132 n. 11
Badenweiler 116 n. 7 Cologne, see Koln
Bandirma 101 n. 4 Como 299 n. 1
Banostor 105 n. 5 Constance, see Konstanz
Basel-Kaiseraugst 7, 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 101 n. 22, 116 n. 4 Constantine 47 n. 13, 71 n. 13, 93-4 n. 11, 298 n. 7
Beirut 106 n. 14, 111 n. 20 Corinth 92 n. 12, 298 n. 22, 299 n. 9
*Belgrade 93 n. 1, 105 n. 5, 116 n. 12, 298f. n. 22 Courroux 71 n. 2, 116 n. 4
Bergama 105 n. 4 Crefeld 71 n. 2
Berne 71 n. 2 Crete, uncertain site 55, 57
Besancon 71 n. 1, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4, 297 n. 11 Cyprus, uncertain site 99, 106, 143 n. 16
Beyrouth, see Beirut Cyrenaica, see Cirenaica
Bingen 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4
Bir Bou Rekba 225 Dalmatia, uncertain site 116 n. 12
Bithynia, see Anatolia Dardanelles, uncertain site 246, 248 n. 1
Bohemia, uncertain site 105 n. 15 Darmstadt 71 n. 3
Bonn 49 n. 8, 93 n. 3, 117 n. 1, 297 n. 11 Daxlanden 116 n. 7
Bordeaux 71 n. 1 Deersheim 337 n. 9
Bourges 298 n. 6 Delos 92 n. 12, 105 n. 10
Breteuil 71 n. 1 Derek Maden 105 n. 14
Brusa, see Bursa Despena Perros 297 n. 4

* Denotes that the place mentioned is the repository, but not necessarily the actual place of discovery of the coins.
49 6 INDICES
Diarbekr m n. 21 Kasina 93 n. 1
Dijon 116 n. 4 Kef 298 n. 4
Donaueschingen 93 n. 6 Kephallenia, see Cephalonia
Dreimannsdorf bei Salis 132 n. 11 Koln 93 n. 3, 101 n. 21, 298 f. n. 22, 299 n. 11
Dura 102 n. 2 Konstanz 92 n. 15, 116 n. 6

Egridir 111 n. 19 Lampsak 105 n. 4

Ehl 116 n. 4 Lausanne 71 n. 2
Eisenstadt 298 f. n. 22 Lebanon 101 n. 12, 105 n. 13
Elbeuf 71 n. 1 Leibnitz 93 n. 1
Elche 297 n. 4 Leiden (Leyden) 74 n. 9
Enge 71 n. 2 Lenzburg 71 n. 2
England, uncertain site 77, 132 n. 11 Lewes 105 n. 17
Enns 92 n. 16 *Lisbon 23, 92 n. 13, 132 n. 11, 297 n. 8
Eregli 111 n. 17 Lorch 116 n. 7
Eski Hisarlik i n n. 15 Lorraine 3 n. 5, 124 n. 9
Este 7 •Luxembourg 3 n. 5, 124 n. 5
Lyon 116 n. 4
Feniki 131 n. 12, 298 n. 5
France, uncertain site 131 n. 12, 132, 157 n. 8, 297 n. n •Madrid 71 n. 10
Franche-Comte, see France Magdeburg 116 n. 10
Frankfurt-am-Main 71 n. 3 Mahlberg 93 n. 6
Mainz 93 n. 3
Geneva 70 n. 7 Manisa 105 n. 4
Girgenti, see Agrigento Mannheim 71 n. 2, n. 3
Giubiasco 92 n. 15, 101 n. 17, 116 n. 6 Maresfield 298 f. n. 22
Gotha 74 n. 9 •Marseille 70 n. 7, 72 n. 1, n. 3, 74 n. 9, 116 n. 5, 297
Graubunden (Grisons) 7 n. 10, 298 n. 13
Greece, uncertain site 93-4 n. 11, 105 n. 10, 107 n. 8, Masala 205
n. 14 Mayenne 118
Grimlinghausen 93 n. 3 Melendugno 298 n. 14, 299 n. 1
Grisons, see Graubunden Metz 71 n. 1
Gschiess (Sercz) 93 n. 6 Migliadino S. Vitale 92 n. 6
Guerbaville-la-Mailleraye 71 n. 1 Milan 47 n. 15
Minas de S. Domingos 297 n. 8
•Hague 74 n. 9 Mitrovica 105 n. 5
Haltern 298 n. 6 Monchsberg 92 n. 16
Hammeran 71 n. 3 Mologno 92 n. 6
Hanau 93 n. 6 Montans 92 n. 11, 116 n. 5, 297 n. 10
Hayling Island 105 n. 17 Montivilliers 71 n. 1
Hazzen 92 n. 15 Mont Jouer a S. Goussand 93 n. 3
Heerewaarden 116 n. 4 Mont S. Michel 71 n. 1
Hees 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4 Mook 94 n. 6
Hegau 92 n. 15, 116 n. 6 Mulhouse 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4, 132 n. 11
Helden 116 n. 4 Mysia-Troad, see Anatolia
Hofheim bei Taunus 71 n. 3, 93 n. 6, n. 11, 297 n. 13
Hungary, uncertain site 71 n. 7, 93 n. 1 Nabeul 225
Naples 48 n. 1,116 n. 9
•Istanbul 82, 105 n. 22, 111 n. 16, 298 n. 12, n. 16 Narbonne 41 n. 10, 70 n. 7, 72 n. 1, 92 n. 11, 105 n. 8,
Italy, uncertain mint 47, 49 n. 9, 71 n. 9 116 n. 5, 297 n. 10, 298 n. 6, 337 n. 8
Izmir 105 n. 4, 244 n. 16 Nauheim 71 n. 3
Neidenstein 93 n. 6
Jagsthausen 116 n. 7 Nemi 299 n. 1
Jerash 298 n. 15, 298 f. n. 22 Nettersheim 93 n. 3
Jerusalem 106 n. 14, 298 f. n. 22 Neuss 42,47 n. 9,71 n. 2,77,93 n. 3,105 n. 19, noti. 4,
Jerwen 93 n. 6 118 n. 11, 297 n. 11, 298 n. 6, 337 n. 8
Neustadt am DonaU 116 n. 6 o f
Kaiseraugst, see Basel Nijmegen 22 n. 5, 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4> 9 - °»
2 8 n

Karlsruhe 116 n. 7 337 n. 8-

 INDICES
Nimes 22 n. 5, 41 n- > 47 n. 8, 70 n. 7, 72 n. 1, n. 3,
IO
S. Andre sur Cailly 93 n. 3
i n n. 23, 116 n. 5, 298 n. 6, 337 n. 8 S. Antioco 146 n. 5
Nova Ves 93 n. 6 S. Bernard 71 n. 6
Novi Banovci93n. 1,10511. 5,11611.12,11711.1,29811.20 S. Bertrand de Comminges 70 n. 7, 297 n. 10
Numantia 71 n. 10, 93 n. 4, 297 n. 4 S. Blaise 71 n. 1, 298 n. 6
S. Gall 71 n. 3
Oberhausen 71 4> 9 - *5> *°5 - 9> *97 n. 12
2n n
S. Germain-en-Laye 71 n. 1, 116 n. 4, 337 n. 8
Obernau 116 n. 7 S. Polo di Piave 92 n. 6
Ohringen 49 n. 8, 71 n. 3, 93 n. 6 S. Saens 71 n. 1
*Oporto 92 n. 13, 297 n. 8 Salerno 48 n. 1
Orange 70 - 7, 7* n . i , 92 n. 11, 116 n. 5
n
Samos 105 n. 4
Orival 71 n. 1 Sardinia, uncertain site 47, 92 n. 8, 93 f. n. 11, 116 n.
Osijek 71 > 5 - 5
8 i o n 149f., 152, 205
Sart 105 n. 4
Padria 205 Sassari 205
Painten 7 Selce 93 n. 1
•Palermo 30 Serbia, uncertain site 111 n. 13, 116 n. 12
Paris 42 n. 9, 71 n. 1, 298 n. 6 Sercz, see Gschiess
Pavia 92 n. 6 Serravalle Scrivia 92 n. 6
Pergamum, see Bergama Serrazeda 71 n. 11
PeruSic 93 n. 1 Sicily, uncertain site 92 n. 9, 197
Petronel 71 n. 7, 93 n. 1, n. 11, 116 n. 12 Sillingy 47 n. 8
Pettau, see Ptuj Sinalungo 7
Pforzheim 116 n. 7 Silak 71 n. 8, 93 n. 1,111 n. 12,116 n. 12, 298 n. l o
Phrygia, see Anatolia Smyrna, see Izmir
Pisidia, see Anatolia •Sofia 101 n. 18, 106 n. 2, 111 n. 14, 298
Pitres 71 n. 1 Sotin 116 n. 12
Ploaghe 205 Soukh-Aras 92 n. 10, 298 n. 22
Poitiers 71 n. 1 Sousse 92 n. 10
Pommern 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4 Spain, uncertain site 47, 74 n. 9, 93 n. 4, 93-4 n.
Pompeii 22 n. 5, 298 f. n. 22 157 n. 8, 159, 216, 298f. n. 22, 473 n. 7
Pontevedra 123 n. 4 Stankamen 93 n. 1
Porto, see Oporto Strasbourg 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4, 337 n. 8
Portugal, uncertain site 116 n. 8, 132 n. 11 Stratos 298, 298 f. n. 22
•Prague 105 n. 5, 116 n. 7 Syracuse 92 n. 9, 93-4 n. 11
Preignan 71 n. 1, 297 n. 11 Syria, uncertain site 100
Priene 105 n. 4
Propontis, see Dardanelles Tangermunde 71 n. 3
Prozor 93 n. 1 Tarragona 297 n. 4, 299 n. 2
Ptuj (Pettau) 71 n. 7, 93 n. 1, n. 11, 299 n. 11 Tebtunis 102 n. 3
Pujol 157 n. 8 Tell Umar 102
Teutre 71 n. 1
Remagen 93 n. 3 Tewkesbury 71 n. 12, 77 n. 1
Rennes 71 n. 1, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4, 297 n. 11 Thrace, uncertain site 15, 82 f., 107
Rheims 3 n. 5, 71 n. 1 Toulouse 70 n. 7, 72 n. 1, 105 n. 18, 298 n. 6
Rhodes 298 f. n. 22 Transjordan, uncertain site 99 n. 12
Riedlingen 71 n. 4, 298 n. 3 Trier 3 n. 5, 93 n. 3
Riegel 71 n. 3 Trieste 71 n. 9
Risstissen 116 n. 6, 143 n. 11 Truvine 205
Rixdorf 298 f. n. 22 Tubingen 71 n. 3
Rodi, see Rhodes Tulca 298 n. 20
Rokytzan 7 Tulle 298 f. n. 22
Rome 47 n. 15, 63 Tunis, uncertain site 140 n. 3
Rossum 93 n. 6 Turkey, see Anatolia, Thrace
Rottenburg 7
Rottweil 71 n. 3, 116 n. 7 Ubbergen 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4
Unterkirchberg 111 n. 26
Saalburg 71 n. 3, 93 n. 6, 116 n. 7 Urmitz 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4
Sagunto 71 n. 10, 297 n. 4, 299 n. 3 Utrecht 71 n. 3, 337 n. 9
498 INDICES
Valkenburg 116 n. 4 Winchester 71 n. 12, 77 n. 1
Vechten 93 n. 6, 116 n. 7 Windisch 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, n. 11, 116 n. 4, 297 n. n
Verneuil 71 n. 1 298 n. 6 '
Vetera 297 n. 11 Winterthur 71 n. 2, 116 n. 6
Vienna 71 n. 7, 74 n. 9, 105 n. 7 Woodeaton 93 n. 7
Vienne 41 n. 10, 70 n. 7, 72 n. 1, 92 n. 11, 116 n. 5,
298 n. 6, 337 n. 8 Xanten 7, 71 n. 2, 93 n. 3, 116 n. 4, 337 n. 8

Walldorf 116 n. 7 Yalvac (Pisidian Antioch) 101 n. 16,

Wangen 116 n. 6
Wels 92 n. 16 Zagreb 102 n. 4, 376 n.
VVidin 299 n. 11 Zillis 132 n. 11
Wiesbaden 71 n. 2 Zollfeld 71 n. 5
Wiesloch 116 n. 7

1
II. MINTS
Abdera A 10 (7) Aspendus 354
Abydus 35if., 357, A 8 Assus 351, 357
Acci 220 Astypalaea A 9
Ace, see Ptolemais Athens 401
Achulla 230 Avennio 391 n. 8, A 10(4)
Acmonia 350, 356, A 8, A 9
Adana A 10 (11) Babba 222
Adramyttium 351, 366, 394, A 8 Baelo 24
Aegae A 9 Baesuris A 10 (2)
Aegeae 344 Balanea 368
Aegium A 10 (6) Balbura A 10 (9)
Aezanis 349, A 8 Bargasa 402, A 10 (8)
Agrigentum 28, 191, 196, 392 Bargylia 351, 357
Agrippias A 10 (7) Berytus 127, 258, 371
Alabanda 369, 373, 396, A 8, A 9 Bilbilis 170
Alexandria 68, 131 Bithynia, uncertain mint 113
Alexandria Troas 244 Blaundus A 10 (8)
Alinda 351, A 9, A 10 (8) Botrys A 10 (11)
Amisus 11 Brundusium 37
Amorium 350, A 8 Brutobriga 381
Amphipolis 343, 374 Bubon 354
Amyzon A 10 (8) Buthrotum 269
Andros A 10 (6) Byzacene, uncertain mint 81
Aninetus 366 Byzantium 369, A 10 (10)
Antioch (Caria) 113, 351, 356, A 8, A 9
Antioch (Pisidia) 250 Cabellio 336
Antioch (Syria) 61, 100, 113, 376, 396 Caesaraugusta 217
Antipolis 390 Caesarea, see Agrippias
Apamea (Bithynia) 69, 145, 255, 396 Caesarea, see Iol
Apamea (Phrygia) 351, 366, A 8 Caesarea (Samaria) 131
Aphrodisias-Plarasa 342, A 8, A 9, A 10 (8) Calagurris 165
Apollonia Salbace (Caria) 350, 357, 365 Caralis 149
Apollonia (Pontus) 353 Carteia' 336, A 10 (2)
Aradus 330, 368 f., 371 Carthage 50, 231
Arausio 208 Carthago Nova 215
Arelate 41 Cassandrea 272
Ascalon 361 Cassope A 10 (6)
Asia, commune 362, 377 Castulo 134, A 10 (1)
Asia, uncertain mint 99 Caunus A 10 (8)

1
Only mints believed to have issued aes coinage in the period 49 B.C-A.D. 14 are included, and references only
apply to the pages on which this coinage is actually described. 'A 1,2' etc. indicates 'Appendices 1,2* etc. (not pag
 INDICES 499
Celenderis A 10(11) Gaza 344
Celsa 211 Germe A 9
Cephallenia 66 Gili A 10 (1)
Cephaloedium 192
Chalcis (Euboea) 385 Hadrumetum 139, 226
Chersonesus A 10 (7) Halaesa 191, 195
Chios 365, 401, A 10 (8) Haluntium 199
Cibyra 350 Henna 190
Cilbiani, see Nicaea Heraclea ad Latmum A 10 (8)
Cirta 232 Heraclea Salbace (Caria) 349, A 8
Clazomenae 351, A 8, A 9 Heraclea (Pontus) 254
Clunia A 10 (1) Hierapolis 351, 3561*., 387, A 8, A 9
Cnossus 35, 55, 138, 261 Hippo Diarrhytus 224
Colophon 351, A 8 Hydisus A 10 (8)
Corcyra A 10 (6) Hydrela 350, 357
Corduba 4, 22, 220 Hypaepa 349,357^8
Corinth 265
Corycus A 10 (11) Iasus 351, A 8
Cos 113, 351 n. 16, A 8 Iconium A 10 (9)
Cossura 191 Ilerda 170
Cragus district 342 Ilergetes A 10 (1)
Cremna A 10 (9) Ilici 213
Cyaneae 343 Ilium 357, 365, A 8, A 9, A 10 (8)
Cydonia 343 Imbros 354
Cyprus 80, 99, 106, 143 Iol 59, A 10 (3)
Cyrene 57, 69, 135, 260 Ionia, uncertain mint 145
Cyzicus 342, 357, A 8, A 9 Irippo 355 n. 6
Italica 173
Damascus 99, 371 Italy, uncertain mint 91
Dardanus 352, A 8 Ithaca 66
Dertosa 158
Dionysopolis A 10 (8) Laelia 355 n. 6
Dioshieron 349, A 8 Lampsacus 246
Dium 272 Laodicea (Phrygia) 352, 357, A 8, A 10 (8)
Dyme 264 Laodicea (Syria) 61, 129
Dyrrhachium 275 Lascuta A 10 (2)
Lebedus A 10 (8)
Ebura 337 Lemnos A 10 (6)
Edessa (Macedonia) 353, 374 Leptis Magna 340
Elaea 352, A 8, A 9, A 10 (8) Leptis Minor 338
Elaeussa A 10 (11) Lilybaeum 26, 196, 393
Emerita 119, 221 Lipara 52, 195
Emporiae 154 Lix 174
Entella 392 Lugdunum 115, 206
Ephesus 104, 352, 357, 365, 369, A 8 Lycia, commune 342
Epicteteis A 10 (8) Lystra 238, 249
Ercavica 336
Eriza A 10 (8) Macedonia, uncertain mint 82
Erythrae 352, A 8, A 10 (8) Magnesia ad Maeandrum (Ionia) 351, A 8, A 9
Etenna A 10 (9) Magnesia ad Sipylum (Lydia) 384, A 9
Eucarpitic district 348, A 8 Malaca A 10 (2)
Eumenia 350, A 8 Marathus A 10 (11)
Euromus 351, A 8 Massicytes district 342
Eustivaicola A 10 (1) Mauretania, uncertain mint 59
Mediolanum 7
Fulvia, see Eumenia Melita 59, 68, 191, 234
Messana 194, 199
Gades 171 Miletopolis 391
Gaul, uncertain tribe 123, 392 Miletus 351, 357
500 INDICES
Myconus 354 Salamis (Cyprus) 143
Mylasa 341, 357, A 8 Saldubia, see Caesaraugusta
Myra 342 Samnagetes A 10 (4)
Myrina 351 Samos 351 n. 16, A 8, A 10 (8)
Myrtilis 24 Samosata A 10 (11)
Sardes 351, A 8
Nabrissa A.-10 (2) Scepsis 351, A 8, A 9
Neapolis ad Harpasum A 10 (8) Segesta 335
Nemausus 70, 114 Segobriga 335
Nicaea (Bithynia) 353, 383, 396 Segovia 336 <

Nicaea Cilbianorum (Lydia) 348, A 9 Seleucia ad Calycadnum (Cilicia) A 10 (11)

Nicomedia 353, 396 Seleucia (Syria) 396
Nicopolis 343, 361 Sestus 353
Nysa A 8, A 9 SeOiscen A 10 (1)
Sexi 473 n. 5
Obulco A 10 (2) Sibliani 349, 357, A 9
Odessus 353 Sidon 125, 344f., 361
Oea 339 Simitthu 178, 232
Olbiopolis A 10 (7) Sinope 251
Onuba A 10 (2) Smyrna 352, A 8
Orthosia A 9, A 10 (8) Spain, uncertain mint 123
Osca 167 Sparta 343, 382, A 10 (6)
Osicerda A 10 (1) Syracuse 30
Osset A 10 (2)
Tabae 351, A 8, A 10(8)
Paestum 200, 284 Tamusia A 10 (1)
Panormus 29, 189 Tanagra 343
Panticapaeum A 10 (7) Tarentum 43
Paphos 80, 99, 106, 143 Tarraco 218
Parium m , 248 Tarsus A 10 (11)
Paros A 10 (6) [Tauromenium 236, see corrigenda]
Patrae 64, 265, 374 Tavium A 10 (9)
Patricia, see Corduba Telmessus 343
Pax 221 Temnus 351, 387, A 9
Pella 279 Tenedus 351, 357
Peparethus 354 Teos 352, A 8
Perga A 10 (9) Termessus Major A 10 (9)
Pessinus A 10 (9) Termessus Minor-Oenoanda 355
Phanagoria, see Agrippias Thaena 346
Pheneus A 10 (6) Thapsus 225
Philadelphia 365, A (8) Thermae Himeraeae 238
Philippi 274 Thessalia 475
Philomelium 350 Thessalonica 33, 369, 374
Phocaea 351 Thessaly 475
Pitane 351, 387, A 9 Thuburnica 185
Pontus, uncertain mint 113 Thyatira 402, A 10 (8)
Priene 388 Thysdrus 347
Prymnessus 350, 367, A 8, A 9 Tingis 175
Ptolemais Ace 368 f., 371 Tlos 342
Puteoli 46 Toletum A 10 (2)
Tomi A 10 (7)
Remi 392 Traducta 220
Rhodes 243, A 10 (8) Tralles 382, A 8, A 9
Rhosus A 10 (11) Trapezopolis 349, A 8
Rome 91 Tripolis (Lydia) 356, A 9
Romula 220 Tripolis (Phoenicia) 368
Turiaso 168
Sabrata 341 Tunis Libisonis 205
Saetabis A 10 (1) Tyndaris 194, 237 1

Saguntum 158 Tyre A 10(11)

 INDICES 501
Urso 24 Vesci 379
Uselis 151 Vienna 337
Utica 20
Zacynthus 39
Valentia A 10 (1) Zama Regia 182
Zitha 187

1
III. PERSONS

M.A.B. 157 Q.B. 26

L. Acilius 237; Man. 81; A . 249; Q.A. 213; M.A. P. Baebius Pollio 282 f.; L.B. Priscus 166
Aviola(?) 17; Man.A. Caninus(?) 26; M.A. Glabrio 81 L. Baggius 213 n. 1
D. Acu(?tilius) Tarn. 262; M.A. 262 Balbus 197; C.B. 212
P. Aebutius 266; P.A. Sp.f. 268 n. 4 M. Barbatius 249; Q.B. 249
L. Aeficius Certus 266 L. Bennius 159
C. Aelius 167; L.A.(?); Lamia 91 n. 2; Q.A. Lamia P. Betilienus Bassus 91 n. 3
91 n. 2 Bocchus rex 175
L. Aemilius 177; M.A. 262; Q.A. 166 n. 1; M.A. Labeo
262; M.A. Lepidus (IHvir) 50, 390; P.A. Lepidus 35; P.C. 205
A. Pollio 177 C . C . At. 156 n. 14
Agrippa, see L . Vipsanius Q . C . C . 157 n. 14
Agrippa Postumus 255, 268, 362 L . C . F . 156 n. 14
T . Ahius A 10 (1) L. Cae. 52
Albius 177 M. Caec. 212 n. 4
C. Alliarius 218 n. 2 Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus 127, 396; Q . C .
A. Allienus 177 Niger 266; C . Plocamus 367; C . Rufus 191; M.C.
P. Allius 52; C A . Bala 28 Severus 169 n. 4
C. Alsanus 218 n. 1 C. Caesar Aug. n. 139, 143ff.,172, 221, 224, 227, 230,
Q. Am. 205 253 n- 3> 348, 356, A 9 (3)
Q. Am. Quinti. 144 L. Caesar Aug. n., ditto
A. Ambatus 182 L. Cal. 211
M. Ambibulus 131 P. Calpurnius 52; L . C . Bibulus 43; Cn. C . Piso 91 n. 2;
M. An. Ant. A 10 (2) . Cn. C . Piso Frugi 31
T . Anicius 248 C. Calvisius Sabinus 158
C. Annius 91 n. 2; L.A. 52; Q.A. 26; Sex. A . 52 Man. Caninius 218 n. 1; C . C . Rebilus 192
Antiochus rex 365 Cap. 52
Antistius Nicanor 366 Capito 135
M. Antonius (IHvir) 37,39,43,64, 253,274, 368ff.; M.A. C. Car. 243
191; M.A. 262; Q.A. 166 n. 1; M.A. Arista(rchus?) P. Carisius 119
264; Sex. A. Athenio 190; M.A. Hipparchus 268 n. 3; C. Cassius 255; L . C . 218 n. 1; L . C . 266; M.C. 191
M.A. Orestes 268 n. 5; M.A. Primus 82; M.A. Theo- Celt. Amb. A 10 (1)
philus 267 Cerdonius(?) A.f. 236 (see also corrigenda); L.C.(?)
L. Appuleius 213; L.A. Decianus 24 Ve(ratus?) 205
L. Apronius 91 n. 3 T . Cervius 218 n. 1
C. Aquinus Mela 283 L. Cestius 190
Aristo ben Ricoce 149 Sex. Cethegus 213
C. Arrius 264 T i . Claudius Nero,see Tiberius; C. Pulcher 91 n. 2; Ap. C.
C. Arruntanus Balbus 59 Pulcher255; Cn. C. Pulcher 157; P.C. Pulcher 15611.14
L. Art. Ve. 202 T i . Clodius Flavus 218; L . C . Rufus 196
(Q. Articuleius?) Regulus 125 C. Clovius 7
Asinius Gallus 91 n. 2, 387; A . Marrucinus 394 L. Cnorius(?) 28
M. Atius Balbus 150 A. Cocceius 269
L. Aufidius Pansa 213 n. 2; A. Rufus 336 C. Cominius 202
M. Aufi(dius?) Scaeva 52 Conduc. 216
L. Ausonius(?) 195 Conipp. (?) 473
C. Axius 202 Coponius 131
1
Only persons directly concerned with aes coinage during the period arc included. Peregrini are generally
omitted. See also p. 498 n. 1.
502 INDICES
L. Cor. Calidus 170 n. 11 365; C.I. Heraclanus 268 n. 5; C.I. Longus 190; C.I
L. Cor. Terrenus 213 n. 1 Nicephorus 266; C.I. Nicom. 156; Sex. I . Pollio 212*
L. Coranius A 10 (1) C.I. Tang. 264; lulia Aug. f. A 9(2); lulia, see*
L. Cornelius 269; P . C . 52; L . C . Balbus major 6; L . C . Livia. See also Germanicus, Drusus
Balbus minor 172; C . C . Gallus 68; P . C . Scipio 387; L . Iunius 30; L . I . 166 n. 1; L . I . 237; M.I. Hisp.
C (?). Sisenna 91 n. 2 213 n. 1
C . Cos. 243 M. Ius. 277
P. Cosconius 260 L . Iuventius Lupercus 218
P. Cotta Balbus 196
Kaninius, see Caninius
P. Dastidius 269
Cn. Domitius 213 n. 1; C n . D . Ampianus 218 C . L . 192
Drusus jun. 268 L . L . 156 n. 13
P.L. 156 n. 13
Egnatius 366 C . Laetilius Apalus 216
Ep. (or Pe.) 244 Leiv., see Liv.
M. Eppius 22 P. Licinius 35; M.L. Capella 166 n. 9; M.L. Crassus 55,
Q. Eq. 202 57; A . L . Nerva Silianus 91 n. 2; P . L . Stolo 91 n. 2;
L . L . Varus 170 n. 11
M.F.M. 157 Liv. Pertinax 227
L . Fabius 166 n. 1; M.F. 217; Q . F . 26; C F . Catulus C . Livineius Gallus 139
226; Q . F . Fabullus 177; Africanus F . Maximus 139, C . Livius 379; Livia 132, 145, 169, A 9 (1)
224, 228; Paullus F . Maximus 387 L . Lollius 56; L.(?) Palikanus 135
M. Fabricius 218 n. 1 C . Lucienus A 10 (1)
Cn. Fadius 218 n. 3; Dec. F . 284; L . F . 202 Q. Lucretius 246
L . Feneste. 169 M. L(urius?) 205; P . L . Agrippa 91 n. 2
A. Feridius 238 Q. Lutatius 217
M. Fictorius 281
Man. Flaminius(?) 254; L . F . Capito 227 M.M.A. 232
Man. Flavius Festus 213 n. 1; P . F . 156 L.M. Ruf. 156 n. 14
T . Fufius 262 M. Maecilius Tullus 91 n. 2
M. Fulvius 212 n. 3; C F . Rutilus 166 n. 9; Fulvia 350, C . Maecius (Celer) 213
368 Maior. 177
A. Furius 366; F . Crassipes 26 Malleolus, see Poblicius
L . Manlius 215; T . M . Sergia(nus) 381
C . Gallius Lupercus 91 n. 2 C . Mar. Cap. 166 n. 2
Num. Gavius 202 C . Marcius 195; M.M. 202; C M . Censorinus 91 n. 2
Germanicus 268 Marius 234; L . M . 169 n. 4
Gessius Charidemus 366, 377 Marullus 167
L . Granius 166 n. 2; C . G . Brocchus 166 n. 8; M.G. C . Masonius Rufus 366 n. 20
Marcellus 145 C . Matuinus 248
Man. Memmius 166 n. 4
C . Heius Pamphilus sen. 266; C . H . Pamphilus jun. Mescinius 386
268 n. 3; C . H . Pollio 268 n. 3 P. Mion. A 10 (2)
Helvius Pollio 159 Mucius 248
C . Herennius 282; M.H. 277 L . Munatius 190; L . M . (Plancus) 392
Hiberus 159 L . Mussidius 237
Hinsteius, see Insteius C . Mussius Priscus 268 n. 3
A. Hirtius 391 Mutumbal 149
A. Hirtuleius 269
Q. Hortensius 33, 272 C . Naevius Capella 91 n. 3; Q . N . Sura 269; L . N .
Surdinus 91
M.I. Ne. 284 P(?). Naso 26
Insteius 266 L . Nep. 2ii
Iuba rex 216 Nonius 279; Sex. N . Quinctilianus 91 n. 2
Cn. Iulius 4; L . I . 222; L . I . 266; C.I. Aeschinus 262; C.I. Novius(?) 266; L . N . 169 n. 4; M.N. Bassus 268 n. 3
Antonius 263; C.I. Asclas 365; C.I. Atticus 177; I . Bito L . Novus 166 n. 9
365; C.I. Caesar (dictator) = Divus I . 13, 47, 50, 207, M.Nun. 284
230,253 n. 3,255f., 258 n. 3,275,374n. 5; C.I. Caesar
Aug. n., see Caesar, C . ; L . I . Caesar Aug. n., see Caesar, C.O.Car. 156 n. 14
C . I .Demetrius365 ;C.I.Dionysius i9o;C.I.Dionysius M.O.H. 157
 INDICES 503
Cn. Octavius 264; M.O. 200; T . O . 373, 396; Octavia L . . . .ius Seneca 177
44, 3<>9 Sept. 197
M. Septimius 281
Q. Oppius 61; M.O. Capito 43, 52
L . Seranus 169 n. 4
Q. Opsilius A 10 (2)
C . Servilius Primus 268 n. 3
C . Otacilius 212 n. 5
C . Sex. 165
M. Paccius Maximus 195 Dcc(?). Sextilius Cornutus 226
Q. Papirius Carbo 215 P(?). Silius 91 n. 2
Q. Paquius Rufus 274 f. Simint. 177
L . Passienus Rufus 139 P. Sittius 178, 232
Pe. (or Ep.) 244 Sosius filius 175; C.S. 39, 392
Q. Peducaeus 380 Sparsus 167 k
C . Petronius 262; M.P. 263; T . P . 215 L . Sta. 202
Pic. 248 L . Staius Murcus 234
L . Pinnius 266 Cn. Stati. Libo 158
M. Plaetorius Tranquillus 166 n. 2 T . Statilius Taurus 52, 91 n. 2, 212
A. Plautius 143; M.P. Silvanus 388 Q. Statius 218 n. 1; L . S . Flaccus 196
L . Plotius Plebeius 262; C P . Rufus 91 n. 2 L . Suillius 284
Poblicius(?) Malleolus 216; Cn.P. Regulus 268 n. 5 Sulpicius 279; S(?). Galus 91 n. 3; P.S. Rufus 11, 251
Pollio 262 L . Sura 211
T . Pom. A 10 (3)
Q. Pomp. Secundinus 213 n. 1 C . T . C . 157
C. Pompeius 213 n. 1; Cn.P. (Magni f.) 22; SexjP. C . T . C . 255
(= Magnus P.) 22; L . P . Bucco 213 n. 1; M.P. Macer M . T . F . 232
388; Sex.P. Niger sen. 211; Sex.P. Niger jun. 213 Tadius 234; P . T . Chilo 266
n. 2 T i . Tarius 276
L . Pomponius 222; P.P. Graecinus Milesius 269; A.P. Q. Terentius Culleo 196; Q. T . Montanus 215 - A . T . y

Victor 21 Tiro 182

L . Pontius 246; L . P . 258 Thorius Flaccus 384, 396
Porcius(?) 26; Dec.P. 52; L . P . 212; M.P. 218 n. 3; L . P . Tiberius (later Emperor) 91 n. 8, 139, 224, 230, 253
Capito 215 n. 3, 268, 356, A 9 (5)
M. Postumius Albinus 215; C P . Mil. 166 n. 1 L . Titius 218 n. 1
C. Proculeius 66 L . Titucius 282
Publicius, see Poblicius Trebonius 52; Q . T . 284
M. Pullienus 269 L . Trinius A 10 (1)
A. Pupius Rufus 69 M. Tullius Cicero 385
M. Turius 246
L . Q . 194 Turpilius Priscus 152
P. Quinctilius Varus 127, 228, 230, 396 P. Turullius 215
T . Quinctius Crispinus Sulpicianus 91 n. 2
Q. Ursus 166 n. 2
Raius(?) 67; L . R . A 10 (2)
Regulus 91 n. 2 C . Valentinus 218 n. 1; L . V . 166 n. 9
C. Rubellius Blandus 91 n. 3 C . Valerius 166 n. 2; C.V. 165; L . V . 177; M.V. 166 n. 8;
Rufinus, see Vibius C . V . Aquinus 169 n. 4; L . V . Catullus 91 n. 3; C . V .
Sex. Rufus 196 Fen(estella?) 218 n. 1; L . V . Flavus 166 n. 10; T . V .
Merula 166 n. 10; V . Messalla 91 n. 3; Volusus V .
C . Sabinus 218 n. 1 Messalla 91
Sacer. 52 Q. Varius 159; C . V . Rufus 212
P. Sal. Pa. 212 n. 3 L . Ve. Ne. 284
* Salassus 196 P. Vedius Pollio 382 _
^ M. Salvius Otho 91 n. 2 M. Vehilius Tuscus 152
M. Sanquinius 91 n. 2 T . Verrius 218 n. 2
M. Sat. 202 C . Vet. Lancia 218 n. 4
Scato 137 C . Vibius 258; P.V. 249; C . V . Pansa Caetronianus 396;
L . Scribonius Libo 29 L . V ( ? ) . Rufinus 385
L . Seius 197; L.S(?). 202 C . Viccius A 10 (1)
L . Sempronius Atratinus 37, 43, 382, 393; C.S. Barb. L . Vipsanius Agrippa 46, 171, 249, 255, 387
166 n. 9; T i . S. Gracchus 91 n. 2; L . S . Maximus Virres 185
212 n. 4; L . S . Rutilus 170 n. n ; M.S. Rutilus 238; L . Volusius Saturninus 228, 230, 232, 396
M.S. Tiberi. 170 n. 11 T . Vomanius 254
504 INDICES

1
IV. TYPES

acrostolium 42, 43, 171 Dioscuri 189, 194

Aesculapius 392 dolphin 41, 128, 158, 161, 162 n. 5
Africa 60 dromedary 57
Ammon 57, 60, 69, 272, 387
anchor 158 eagle 40, 68, 124, 127, 214, 220, 237, 251 (see also
apex, see pontifical emblems standards)
Aphrodite, see Venus elephant 52 n. 16, 53, 60, 139, 175
Apollo 25,55,57, 67, 191, 196 (see also Bacchus) Eros, see Cupid
aquila, see eagle Euthenia 132
Artemis, see Creta, Diana eye 207
Asclepius, see Aesculapius
aspergillum, see pontifical emblems fasces 55, 236, 264
Astarte 224, 347 Felicitas 62
Athena, see Minerva fiscus 13
axe 66
galley 31, 43, 50, 158, 214 (see also prow)
Baal 177 gate of city 221
Bacax 182 Genius Populi Romani 173
Bacchus 52 n. 16 globe 174, 187, 220, 253 n. 3
Bacchus-Apollo 40 Gorgon, see Medusa .
bee 3 n.2 gorgoneion 46
'bird's eye' view of town, see walls grapes 221
boar 52 n. 16, 179, 202, 473 grapnels 42
bridge 222
bull 60, it8, 124, 165, 191, 206, 208, 211, 216, 238, 3 9 hammer 216
(see also oxen, plough) hands clasped 382
hasta donatica 13, 69
caduceus 57, 382, 394 Health, see Salus
Capricorn 61, 96, 112, 118 n. 3, 132, 143, 174, 1! r, Helios, see Sol
347 Hephaestus, see Vulcan
centaur 52 n. 16 Hercules 52 n. 16, 171, 173, 185, 192, 254
Ceres 146, 224, 250, 258, 392 Hermes, see Mercury
cippus, figures on 275 hippocamp 43, 336
city-goddess 11, 57, 187, 206, 253 n. 3, 336 Homonoia, see Concordia
club 28, 54, 56 Honos 178
cock 42 Hope, see Spes
colonists, see plough horse 123, 134, 355
column 66 horseman 29, 106, 168, 282
Concordia 271, 392
corn-ear 57, 175, 177, 182, 221, 272 Janus 31, 37, 52 n. 16, 86, 175
cornucopiae 174, 187, 220, 253 n. 3, 353 Juno 146, 224, 384
corona navalis 73f., I02f., 107, n o Jupiter 26, 52 n. 16, 66, 143, 178, 388 (see also
cow 103 Ammon)
crescent 61, 63, 91, 102, 102 n. 8
Creta-Diana 35 knife 122
crocodile 55, 57, 69, 70
Crysas 191 labyrinth 262
cu/tt/j-statues 144 laurel-branches 56, 139, 145
Cupid 4, 52 n. 16 Libya 35, 57, 137
lighthouse, see Pharos
Demeter, see Ceres lion 60, 391
Diana 56, 62, 154, 272 (see also Creta) lituus 50,72,128,134,139 (see also pontifical emblems)
Diogenes 253 locust 258
Dionysus, see Bacchus lyre 25
1
Only types possessing special interest and ly those on ais coinage 49 B.C.-A.D. 14 are included.
 IND CES 505
Medusa 52 n. 16 Senate 356
Melkart 185 serpent 69, 137, M9 n. 6, 392, 473
Mercury 49 n. 14, 52 n. 16, 225, 254 shield 121, 178, 216, 281
Minerva (Roma) 3 n. 2, 7, 29, 132, 154, 185, 202, 211, ship, see galley, prow
236, 244, 263, 264, 277, 356 sidus Iulium, see star
modius 274 silphium 57, 260
simpulum, see pontifical emblems
Neptune 4*> 49 - 4>
n ! 2 2 6 sistrum
Nike, see Victory skate 66
snake, see serpent
Odysseus, see Ulysses Sol 226, 258, 392
owl 11, 112 spear, spearhead 122, 150
oxen, humped 238, 250 Spes 281
staff, see hasta
palm-branch 54 stag 56
panther 52 n. 16 standards 42, 127, 220 (see also eagle, vexillum)
Pax 50 n. 14, 281 star 50, 61, 112, 12^, 143, 207, 253 n. 3
Pegasus 154 strigiles 282
pentalpha 387 subsellium 264
pertica 34
Pharos 194 temple 149, 205, 215, 266, 382, 388
pig, see boar throne 144
plough, ploughing scene 34, 102, 111, 1521*., 221, 238, thunderbolt 61, 63
244, 246, 249, 250, 253 n. 3, 258, 264, 272, 274, Thuso-Chusartis 224
277 trident 41, 128
pontifical emblems 128,172, 212, 220, 237, 251, 253 n. 3, tripod 40, 275
281 (see also lituus) triskeles (triquetra) 43, 46!*., 96, 196
poppy 57 trophy 40, 160
Poseidon, see Neptune tunny-fish 221
prow 37, 42, 55, 82, 112, 146 n. 5, 2071*., 246 (see also Tyche, see city-goddess
galley)
Ulysses 52 n. 16
quadriga 50 n. 14
Vagax, see Bacax
ram 69, 137, 208 Venus 49f. n. 14, 62, 143, 211, 275, 390
rider, see hippocamp, horseman vexillum 34, 215, 272, 273 n. 7 (see also standards)
river-deity 162 n. 5, 221 Victory 54 etc.
Roma, see Minerva Virtus 178
rose 243 Vulcan 52, 195
rostral crown, see corona navalis
rudder 187 walls 119, 221, 281
warrior 26, 173, 224
sacculus 69 wheel 112
Salus 271 wolf 170
Sardus 150, 205
scorpion 143 wolf and twins 174, 255
sella castrensis 69, 135, 138
curulis 56 f., 59, 236, 279, 384 yoke 34
quaestoria 13, 69, 234
Zeus, see Jupiter
506 INDICES

V. GE1
Ablative Case 5,25,28,69,159,189^,1961"., 224,246,262 concilium, see League; plebis 433
Accusative Case 100, 390 Concordia 227, 232, 256, 346
aediles 162, 166, 177 confusion of portraits 74f., 228, 334, 361, 463 f., 467
aerarium 2of., 25, 79, 95, 97, 129^, 133, 136, 2921"., 296, consilium principis 128, 130, 146, 435, 453
311; militare 197 n. 6 conventus 315; civium Romanorum, see castellum, pagus
aes Cordubense (Marianum) 7, 24, 87; Corinthium copper 77, 87, 89ff.,96, 104, 107, n o , 300 n. 2
107 n. 9 Cosmocrator 13
dyopocvopoi 300 Cosmographia 310
Aion 63 countermarks 22 n. 6, 41 n. 10, 42, 66, 70, 72, 92 ff.
ala equestris 117 102, K>5f., inff., 117k, 122, 155, 230, 246, 256*
'alliance' coinages 121, 185 n. 6, 188 n. 12, 339, 346 299 n. 11, n. 12, 300, 377, 472
amenonkal, see menokad creator 266
amicus principis 136 n. 3, 140, 2291"., 257, 295, 365, Cretarch 55 f.
387ff., 402, 430 cura, see tutela
Antigonids 3741*.
apposition 158 Scciucov, see genius
area 118, 129 Dative Case 69, 103, 187, 215, 224 f., 228, 399
archieratic coinage, dpxtepeOs, see priesthood decemvirate 41
art 477 ff. decennial coinage, see jubilee coinage
ascriptio 265 n. 1 decreta 430 ff.
Asiarches 363 denarii, see silver and gold coinage, official
asylum 402 n. 7 81& 392
auctoritas 1, 82, 84, 97, 108ff., 1141"., 117, i2of., 128ff., 8i<5rTccypcc 131, 432
132, 134, 1461"., 198, 220, 28of., 289, 292fT., 312, 314, dicta principis 43 2 f.
3i9ff, 32 f., 337, 341, 345, 358, 401ff.,422, 424ff.
4
dictatorship 413
aurei, see silver and gold coinage, official Dioscuri 145
auspicia 426 n. 5 divus, see deo*
a\jTOKp<5rroop, see imperator, imperium dominus 143, 441
aCrrovonfa 398, 402 8wpov 365
double communities 155, 158 n. 4, 383 n. 10, 403f.
bellum 419 dupondius 13, 31, 86, 91, 96, 996% 104, io6f., 119, 138,
bilingual coinage 26, 28, 30 n. 6, 35, 40, 59, 66, 155, 145, 172, 217
162 n. 5, 192, 338, 347 dux 421, 442, 444, 452 n. 5
bimetallism 3
birth certificates 312 edicta 313, 430ft"., 438 n. 1
BovAccTos 359 elasticity of administration 143
British coinage 124 £AEV0eplcc, see libertas
^ 373, 377, 39°, 393, 396ff,401
cadmea 11, 87 hnneAri&vTOs 399
caesa ruta, see ruta caesa hri9cxvi'is 358
calamine 87 epistulae 43if.
castellum civium Romanorum 306 epulones 287
castrensis moneta 50 n. 14, 120 n. 5 era 253, 331 ff, 344^ 368f., 371 f. n. 14, 372 n. 6
censores 154 n. 5, 156, 439 exercitus 20
censuit 233
censuses 129, 164 n. 4, 3101"., 439 felix 14
centenary issues, see jubilee coinage festival coinage 362 ff.
city-badges, see types parlants financiers as moneyers 6,11,18 f., 24,41, 64, 89,127,397
Cleopatra 62, 64, 371 ff. fiscus 18, 95, 97, 118, 129, 296
clientela 151, 157, 176, 223 n. 3, 249, 259, 265 f., 3176% foederati 161, 350 n. 3, 402 n. 6, 404, 473
341, 356, 358, 366, 4021"., 417, 427, 436, 444, 474 n. 8 fora 147 n. 1, 171
cohortes urbanae 437 n. 1 forgeries, see imitations, modern
coiffure 35, 50 n. 14, 62, 143, 284 n. 5, 288 n. 12 fragmentum Atestinum 9
comitia 433
comitialis 196 n. 13, 248 gallus 42^ 67 n. 12
commune, see League Garamantes 137
 INDICES
gemina, gemella 248 lectio senatus 449 n. 3
Genitive Case 29 f., 68, 98,131, 153 n. 2,157,190, 207, legionary coinage 60 n. 7, 102 n. 4, 117, 209, 217 n. 10,
225, 228 n. 13, 230, 250 n. 2, 392ff. 220, 250
genius 173, 320, 357""- lex 452 n. 4; curiata 242; data 433 n. 14; dicta 205 n. 18;
gens Augusta 146, 471 rogata 433 n. 14; Agraria 160; Antonia 180; coloniae
yvcbun 84, 425 Genetivae Iuliae 34, 151, 172, 214, 322; de imperio
gold coinage, see silver and gold coinage, official Vespasiani 445; Fundana 309; Iulia (colonies) 30,
ypauncrreus 378 154 n. 5, 236; Iulia maiestatis 83, 405, 413; Iulia
peculatus 101; Iulia vicesimaria 325; Mamilia 34;
dyvds 387 Patavina 309; Plautia Papiria 199 f.; Pompeia 140,3 8 5;
hairdressing, see coiffure Roscia 9; Rubria 9; Titia 46, 48, 416, 433 n. 4, 450
half-coins, 7i~77, m , 124 libelli 431 n. 1
haplography 380 n. 16 libertas 13, 35, 55 f-, 100, 126, 183, 224!!., 315f., 318,
fiyeucbv 444 324f., 338ff, 397f., 401 ff., 418, 424, 443, 475 f.
lepos y&uos 368 libertus 262, 404
Homonoia, see Concordia lietors 424
hybrids 49 n. 2, n. 5, 74f. n. 9, 99, 467
vnroaTpaTnyos 126 Magnus 22 f., 415
mandata 425, 431 n. 2
l8t6Aoyos 131 Marmaridae 137, 141, 341
imitations, barbarous 20 n. 5, 72, 76, 85 n. 8, 93, ioif., menokad 359, 442 n. 5
105; modern 7f., 41 n. 9, 49 n. 3, 61, 223f. n. 4, mens bona 324
369 n. 14 (see also tooling) mensores 312 n. 6
immunitas 35, 55, 315, 324, 402 n. 7 metropolis 100, 340 n. 11, 353, 398
imperator, imperium 1, 4f., 10, i6ff., 22, 32f., 35ff., 39, militias, local 303
53, 5 ff., 65, 67ff, 79ff., 84, 117, i2of., 126, 130,
7 mine coinage 134^.
133, 135 ff., i4off., 151 n. 16, 181 n. 1, 203, 234!!"., mint-marks 1, 5, 25 f., 28, 35, 40, 57, 66, 72, 192, 394
242, 247, 287, 293, 321, 323, 341, 359, 374, 376, 386, municipal reforms 3o8tf., 335ff., 338ff., 346ff.
405, 408 ff. munita 285
incision 76 n. 7 Myron 103
indemnity coinage 393, 395
indulgentia 295 veos 6t6s 358
inimicitia 417 vouii 364
intercessio 447 n. 3 Nominative Case 392
numen, see genius
Jews i29f. n. 14, 131
jubilee coinage 147, 153? *5 - 3> 222, 254, 277, 295,
8 n oratio 312, 446 f. n. 13
33iff. 38ff.
l 3 orichalcum 11, 13f., i8f., 61 f., 64, 77, 85ff., 91, 104,
iurisdictio 324 107 n. 9, i24f., 300, 474, 493
ius: agendi cum populo 447, 452 n. 4; auxilii 431 n. r, orthography 8, 155,. 182, i87f., 215 n. 11, 216 n. 18,
448 f., 45 i f ; edicendiy see edicta; exilii 342, 402 n. 7; 347 n. 7, 378 n. 14, 474, 479
honorum 324 n. 11; Italicum 315 f.; Latinum, see Lati- overstriking 47, 53, 55
nitas; primae relationis 446; provocationis 450 n. 9;
senatus conferendi 446; senatus consulendi 120, 293, pagus civium Romanorum 186, 239 n. 1, 348, 383, 403 f.
446, 450 f., 452 n. 4 TTapd 399
iussu 12, 252, 289, 321, 438, 445 parens, pater 15 f., 152, 166f., 170, 251, 265, 319, 444
patrimonium Augusti 97, 130
KccToudcc 158 n. 5 patrocinium, see clientela
kingship 17, 368ff.,409 f., 475 Pax 271, 281, 442
knights as moneyers 4 n. 1, 6, 67ff., 131 ff., 138, 382f., pecunia publica 78 n. 11, 231
388 f., 392 (see also procurator) permissu 128, 130, 232, 260, 295, 321, 337, 400, 428, 435,
«S?owov, see League 453
Pharaonic succession i32f., 37of.
Lagids, see Ptolemies <piA6Katcrap, 9iA6irocTpis 365
Latinitas 25, 155 n. 3, 161, 201, 214, 318, 335ff, Pietas 23 n. 2, 153, 416
404, 473 plena legis actio 324
Laurium 107 n. 9 pontifex, see priesthood
League coinage {commune, KOIV6V) 107, 115, i44f., portrait-rights 15, 33ff, 133, 152, 224, 228ff, 258, 317,
342ff.,353, 362ff.,377, 384 37 f., 379^, 389
3
5o8 INDICES
posthumous coinages 73 fF., 222, 328 fF., 463 fF. 222 n. 3, 234, 243, 248, 264, 269 n. 4, 273, 3 3 7 > 3 3

postliminium 402 n. 7 341 f., 34 ff., 356f., 363 n. 2, 369, 372, 377,
9 3 7 9

praefecti 4, 7fF., 11, 25, 33 fF., 39, 46, 62, 65, 69, 97, 161, 408 f., 416 n. 10, 467 f. '
163 f., 169, 183 f., 212, 247, 263, 268, 273, 285, 323, silver in bronze 132 n. 10
437 n. 1 silver coinage, local 56, 64, 99f., 145, 191 . 14, 227
n

praefecturae 147 n. 1, 171 340, 368, 372, 398, 401 '

Praetorian Guard 437 n. 1 spectatio 86 f., 89
praetorium 135 n. 13 spodium 87 n. 5
priesthood 100,158,163,249,252,287,363,376 fF., 434 n. stipendiariae civitates 346, 401ff.,462
princeps 14, 244, 441, 444, 452 OTporrnyds 126, 386
privy-marks 31, 57 subscriptio 4321".
procurator 4 n. 1, 66f., 118, 129, 131, 135, 136 n. 3, suffectio 160 n. 1
322, 382f., 388f. (see also knights) suffetes 149
TrpOCJTCCOrfa 142 ouyyEvi^s 388
protome 42 otiuuccxoi 402
Ptolemies 132 f., 369fF. avuTToXrreicc, see synoecism
synoecism 342, 349, 355, 403f.
quadrans 4ft*., 28fF., 35, 52ft*., 68, 86, 93, 114, 116, 125,
138, 162 n. 5, 211, 217 taxes 203, 315
quaestorium 135 n. 13 temple coinage 362, 376
quaestors 5,16, 21 fF., 25, 69, 135fF., 140, 270, 276 n. 10 termini 313
quinquennales 154 n. 5, 156, 159, 161 fF., 202 n. 9, 212, tesserae nummulariae 86
222f., 236f., 2<>7f., 270, 279 f., 282f., 3iof. tea vearrtpa 63 f.
fcos 318, 358, 375, 444
recruiting 438 f. Thurinus 124
religious coinage, see temple coinage token coinage 3, 19, 45, 86ff., 96, 131 f., 300
rependatur 117 tooling 42 n. 4, 81 n. 2, 277^ n. 8, 382 n. 12, 385 n. 16,
rescripta 43if. 386 n. 2
res privata, see patrimonium 'travelling' mint, see castrensis moneta
responsa prudentium 431, 433, 445 n. 2 tressis, tripondius 31, 44, 88, 208
retouched coins, see tooling tribes 1, 123 f., 348f., 391 f., 474
rex, see kingship tribuniciapotestas 120, 128,-219, 359, 429, 434f., 446ff.
'PcouccTcc 363 trilingual issue 155 n. 5
Romulus 424, 444 Troy 245
ruta caesa 280 tutela et cura 318, 437 n. 1, 452f.
types parlants 1, 42, 67, 162 n. 5, 165, 188 n. 3, 194,
sacerdos 158, 163, 249 2i6f., 259, 271
sacrosanctitas 451
ZepaoTd 362 urban cohorts, see cohortes urbanae
IEPCCOT6S 359fF. urbanization 147, 348 f.
Seleucids 368 ff. urbs 215
semuncial coinage 154 n. 5
sententia 98, 203, 288, 431 n. 5 vectigalia, see taxes
sextans 45 vicus civium Romanorum 5, 173
silver and gold coinage, official 5ff.,14, 17 n. 3, 23 n. 1, vigintiviri 117
29, 32, 38, 41, 43ff., 48, 49 n. 14, 58, 60 n. 7, 62, 73f., vota 434, 442 n. 13
82, 83 n. 1, 90, 95f., 99^, i03f., ii4f., 121ff.,125,
132, 139, 144, 146, 155, 164, 167, 173, 207fF., 221, zodiac, signs of 209
 509

1
KEY TO PLATES

PLATE I PLATE V
i BM, 2 BM, 3 BM, 4 BM (R), 5 Berlin, 6 Berlin, 1 Paris (O), 2 Paris (O), 3 Vienna, 4 BM (O),
7 BM (R), 8 BM (R), 9 BM (O), 10 Berlin (O), 5 BM (O), 6 BM (R), 7 BM, 8 BM (O), 9 BM (O),
11 Paris, 12 Berlin, 13 BM, 14 BM (R), 15 Berlin, 10 BM (R), 11 New York, 12 BM (O), 13 Paris,
16 Berlin, 17 Copenhagen, 18 BM (R), 19 Cam- 14 BM, 15 BM (O), 16 BM (O), 17 BM (O), 18 BM,
bridge (R), 20 BM, 21 BM (R), 22 BM, 23 Paris, 19 BM, 20 BM (O), 21 BM (R), 22 BM, 23 BM (R),
24 BM, 25 BM, 26 Berlin (R), 27 Berlin, 28 BM. 24 BM, 25 BM (O), 26 BM (R), 27 BM (O),
28 BM (O), 29 BM (O).

PLATE I I
PLATE V I
1 Istanbul, 2 Istanbul, 3 Berlin, 4 Berlin, 5 Berlin
(R), 6 BM (R), 7 Berlin (O), 8 BM (R), 9 Capitoline, 1 Berlin (O), 2 Berlin, 3 Berlin (O), 4 Rome,
10 Copenhagen (O), 11 Cambridge (R), 12 Copen- 5 Berlin, 6 BM, 7 Berlin (O), 8 Berlin (O), 9 BM,
hagen, 13 Turin (O), 14 Glasgow, 15 Berlin, 10 Vatican, 11 Copenhagen, 12 Paris (O), 13 BM
16 Copenhagen, 17 Paris (O), 18 Paris (O), (R), 14 Paris, 15 Paris, 16 Paris, 17 Athens (O),
19 Berlin (O), 20 BM (O), 21 Paris (O), 22 Cam- 18 Cambridge, 19 Rome, 20 Gotha (O), 21 Paris,
bridge (O), 23 Cambridge (O), 24 Grant (O). 22 Paris, 23 Berlin, 24 Paris, 25 Grant.

PLATE V I I
PLATE I I I
1 BM, 2 Paris, 3 BM, 4 BM, 5 BM, 6 Paris,
1 Grant (O), 2 Berlin (O), 3 Berlin (O), 4 Paris
7 Berlin, 8 BM, 9 BM, 10 Berlin (R), 11 Berlin,
(O), 5 Grant (O), 6 Paris (O), 7 Copenhagen (O),
12 Berlin, 13 Berlin, 14 Berlin, 15 Berlin, 16 Berlin
8 Berlin (O), 9 Berlin (O), 10 Paris (O), 11 Grant
(R), 17 BM, 18 BM (O), 19 BM (O), 20 BM
(O), 12 Copenhagen (O), 13 Berlin (O), 14 Paris
(O), 21 BM (O), 22 Berlin (O), 23 Cambridge
(R), 15 Grant (O), 16 Milan (O), 17 Vienna (O),
(R), 24 Paris, 25 BM, 26 BM (R), 27 Paris,
18 Vatican (O), 19 Glasgow (O), 20 Paris (O),
28 Paris (O), 29 Milan (O), 30 Paris (O), 31 Paris
21 Vienna (O), 22 Paris (O), 23 Cambridge (O),
(R), 32 Glasgow.
24 BM (O), 25 Paris (O), 26 Vienna (O), 27 Prague
(O), 28 Cambridge (O), 29 Naples, 30 Oxford (O).
PLATE V I I I
1 Copenhagen, 2 BM, 3 Paris, 4 Paris, 5 Berlin,
PLATE I V 6 Berlin, 7 Paris (R), 8 BM (O), 9 Berlin (R),
10 Cambridge (R), 11 Berlin, 12 Berlin, 13 Paris,
1 Prague (O), 2 Gotha (O), 3 Grant (O),
14 Paris, 15 Paris, 16 Berlin, 17 BM, 18 Berlin,
4 Grant (O), 5 Sofia (R), 6 BM (O), 7 Gotha (O),
19 Vienna, 20 Naples, 21 Berlin, 22 BM. (O),
8 BM (O), 9 BM (O), 10 Zagreb (O), 11 Rome (O),
23 Gotha, 24 Vatican, 25 Gotha (R), 26 Paris (R),
12 Leningrad (O), 13 Paris (O), 14 Berlin (O),
27 Berlin, 28 BM.
15 Berlin (O), 16 Hague (R), 17 Berlin (R),
\ 18 BM (O), 19 Paris, 20 Paris, 21 Paris, 22 Grant
(O), 23 Paris (R), 24 BM (O), 25 Berlin (R), PLATE I X
26 Paris (O), 27 Milan, 28 Hague, 29 BM (O), 1 BM (O), 2 BM (R), 3 Paris, 4 Paris, 5 Vienna
30 Turin (O), 31 Oxford (O), 32 Paris, 33 Cam- (R), 6 Paris, 7 BM, 8 BM (R), 9 Berlin, 10 BM,
bridge (O), 34 Paris (R). 11 BM, 12 BM, 13 BM (O), 14 BM (O), 15 BM (O),
1
O = Obverse only; R = Reverse only.
 KEY TO PLATES
16 BM (O), 17 Paris, 18 BM, 19 BM, 20 Copen- PLATE X I
hagen, 21 Paris, 22 BM, 23 Hannover (O), 24 Paris,
All O unless stated: 1 Berlin (Prymnessus)
25 Paris (O), 26 BM (O), 27 Berlin, 28 Berlin (O),
2 BM (Prymnessus), 3 Glasgow (Smyrna), 4 BM
29 BM (O), 30 BM (O), 31 BM (O), 32 BM (O),
(Smyrna), 5 Istanbul (Laodicea), 6 BM (Sardes),
33 BM (O), 34 Paris.
7 BM (Hierapolis), 8 BM (Laodicea), 9 p js ar

(Ephesus), 10 Rome (Magnesia ad Maeandrum),

11 BM (Hierapolis), 12 Paris (Hierapolis), 13 Munich
PLATE X
(Acmonia), 14 Paris (Bargylia), 15 Munich (Cy-
All O or R only: 1 Grant (Abydus), 2 Paris zicus), 16 Gotha (Hierapolis), 17 BM (Hierapolis),
(Miletus), 3 Paris (Lampsacus), 4 Paris (Lebedus), 18 Berlin (Hierapolis), 19 BM (Laodicea), 20 Berlin
5 BM (Aezanis), 6 Grant (Erythrae), 7 Paris (Tripolis), 21 Paris (Assus), 22 Grant (Abydus),
(Magnesia ad Sipylum), 8 BM (Alabanda), 9 Berlin 23 Berlin (Cyzicus), 24 Paris (dub. Mysia), 25
(Aezanis), 10 Paris (Dioshieron), 11 Vienna Istanbul (Ilium), 26 Copenhagen (Erythrae),
(Prymnessus), 12 BM (Alabanda), 13 Rome 27 Berlin (Colophon), 28 BM (Nysa), 29 Berlin
(Apollonia Salbace), 14 Cambridge (Cidramus), (Pergamum), 30 BM (uncertain), 31 BM (Tabae),
15 Vienna (Midaeum), 16 Paris (Eumenia), 17 BM 32 BM (Erythrae), 33 Paris (Ephesus), 34 BM
(Aphrodisias), 18 BM (Laodicea), 19 BM (Lao- (Heraclea Salbace), 35 BM (Cos), 36 BM (Samos),
dicea), 20 BM (Laodicea), 21 BM (Laodicea), 37 Copenhagen (Apollonia Salbace), 38 Grant
22 Cambridge (Laodicea), 23 R. of 20, 24 R. of 21, (Siblia), 39 BM (Tripolis), 40 Istanbul (Nysa),
25 BM (Synnada), 26 Paris (Synnada), 27 BM 41 Cambridge (Nysa), 42 Hague (Cilbiani in-
(Apollonia Salbace), 28 Paris (Dionysopolis), feriores), 43 Berlin (Miletus), 44 Rome (Clazo-
29 BM (Heraclea Salbace), 30 BM (Tripolis), menae), 45 BM (Tralles), 46 BM (Trapezopolis),
31 BM (Eumenia), 32 BM (Dionysopolis), 33 Rome 47 BM (Rhodes), 48 Berlin (uncertain) (O and R),
(Sebaste), 34 BM (Aphrodisias), 35 Gotha (Hiera- 49 Copenhagen (Tralles), 50 Paris (Tralles),
polis), 36 Cambridge (Antiochia ad Maeandrum), 51 Naples (Ephesus), 52 Paris (Eumenia), 53 R.
37 BM (Cos), 38 BM (Mylasa), 39 Hague (Magnesia of 41, 54 Berlin (Alabanda), 55 Berlin (Alabanda)
ad Maeandrum), 40 Vienna (Philomelium), 41 Paris (O and R), 56 Vatican (Alabanda), 57 Milan
(Cibyra), 42 Berlin (Magnesia ad Maeandrum), (Alabanda), 58 BM (Hierapolis), 59 R. of 37,
43 Gotha (Lampsacus), 44 Berlin (Apollonia 60 Winterthur (Miletopolis), 61 Paris (Laodicea),
Salbace), 45 Gotha (Tabae), 46 Cambridge (Per- 62 Oxford (Adramyttium), 63 R. of X 64, 64 BM
gamum), 47 BM (Stratonicea), 48 Berlin (Cibyra), (Hypaepa), 65 Naples (Alabanda) (O and R),
49 Munich (Apollonis), 50 Paris (Philadelphia), 66 R. of X . 6.
51 Paris (Abydus), 52 BM (Mylasa), 53 BM
PLATE X I I
(Mylasa), 54 BM (Dar^anus), 55 Berlin (Magnesia
ad Maeandrum), 56 Naples (Amorium), 57 Paris 1 Paris, 2 BM (O), 3 BM (O), 4 Berlin, 5 Vienna,
(Elaea), 58 Gotha (Ephesus), 59 Paris (Ephesus), 6 Rome, 7 Naples, 8 Vienna (O), 9 Vienna Uni-
60 BM (Euromus), 61 BM (Acmonia), 62 Paris versity, 10 Paris (O), 11 BM, 12 Munich, 13 BM (O),
(Aezanis), 63 Rome (Ephesus), 64 Paris (Dios- 14 Paris, 15 Paris, 16 Berlin (O), 17 Berlia (O),
hieron), 65 Istanbul (Alabanda), 66 Oxford 18 Milan, 19 Berlin, 20 Berlin (O), 21 Munich,
(Adramyttium), 67 Paris (Hypaepa), 68 Paris 22 Paris, 23 Paris, 24 Rome, 25 BM, 26 Berlin (O),
(Apamea), 69 BM (Apamea), 70 Winterthur 27 BM (O), 28 Berlin (O), 29 Berlin, 30 Vienna,
(Eucarpia), 71 BM (Siblia), 72 Paris (Metropolis). 31 Paris, 32 Winterthur, 33 Paris.
 5"

PAGE REFERENCES FOR T H E P L A T E S

The following list of page-references for the Plates was compiled by the late Dr Karl Pink and published
in the Numismatische Zeitschrift, 1946-7, pp. 138f. I am very grateful to the Austrian Numismatic Society
for permission to reproduce it.

PLATE I PLATE V I I
1 p. 4, 2-3 p. 26, 4 p. 29, 5-6 p. 28, 7 p. 40, 1 p. 177, " 3 P- i 5 , 4 p- i9°> 5 P- 196, 6* p. 195,
2 8

8 p. 41,9 p. 40,10 P- 9» 11 p. 30,12 p. 52,13 p. 46,

2
7 p. 194, 8 p. 197, 9-10 p. 200, 11 p. 284, 12 p. 202,
14p. 49, 15 P- 5 , P - 53,17P- 5 , P - , 1 9 P - ,
2
1 6
2
1 8 6 2 6 l
13-15 p. 284, 16 p. 203, 17 p. 159 n., 18 p. 216,
20 p. 64, 21-22 p. 66, 23 p. 81, 24-28 p. 91. 19 p. 219, 20-21 p. 211, 22-23 P* 7 » 4 P*
20 2
, 2 o 6

25 p. 234, 26 p. 473, 27 p. 236, 28-30 p. 228,

31 p. 230, 32 p. 243.
PLATE I I
1 p. 11, 2-3 p. 13, 4-5 P- 20, 6 p. 24, 7-8 p. 33,
9 p. 37, 10-11 p. 42, 12 p. 50, 13 p. 52, 14 p. 54, PLATE V I I I
15 p. 35,16 p. 60,17-18 p. 73,19-23 p. 74,24 p. 75. 1 p. 225, 2-4 p. 232, 5 p. 244, 6-7 p. 246,
8-9 p. 238, i o - n p. 250, 12-13 P* 5 » M-172 !

p. 255, 18 p. 262, 19 p. 266, 20 p. 269, 21 p. 272,

PLATE I I I 22 p. 274, 23 p. 276, 24-25 p. 277, 26 p. 278,
1-5 p. 76, 6-12 p. 78, 13-14 p. 82, 15 p. 98, 27 p. 279, 28 p. 283.
16 p. 100,17-20 p. 99,21-25 P* > 26-27 p. 102,
IOO

28-30 p. 103.
PLATE I X
PLATE I V 1-2 p. 249, 3 p. 254, 4 p. 253, 5 p. 251, 6 p. 260,
1 p. 478, 2 p. 103, 3-4 p. 104, 5 p. 105,6-8 p. 106, 7-8 p. 262, 9-10 p. 260, 11 p. 265, 12 p. 266,
9 [p. 106], 10 p. 107, 11 p. 106, 12-13 p. 107, 14 13 p. 268 n., 14-16 p. 268, 17 p. 283, 18 p. 272,
p. 478, 15 p. 344, 16 p. 107, 17 p. 479, 18 p. 122, 19 p. 281, 20 p. 282, 21-22 p. 275, 23 p. 369,
19 p. 123, 20-21 p. 105, 22-23 P* 3 > 4 5 P- 43,28 2 - 2 r
24 p. 392, 25 p. 478, 26 p. 392, 27 p. 336, 28 p. 390,
26 p. 139, 27 p. 146, 28 p. 139, 29-31 p. i n , 32 2
9 P- 37 , 30 P- 374, 31 P- 38 , 3 P- 385, 33 P- 387,
2 2 2

P- " 3 , 33-34 p. M5- 34 P. 388.

PLATE V PLATE X
1-2p. i n , 3 p. 113,4-5 p. 115,6p. 121,7p. 134, 1 p. 334 n., 2-3 p. 334, 4-5 p. 329, 6 p. 364, 7
8-9 p. 124,10 p. 120,11 p. 145,12 p. 132,13 p. 128, P- 334, 8—, 9 p. 329, 10 p. 334, 11 p. 463, 12-15
14 p. 149, P- 154, 17 P- 477, 18 P- 154, 19 p. 334, 16 p. 329, 17-18 p. 334, 19 p. 329, 20-21
p. 170, 20 p. 165, 21 p. 170, 22 p. 168, 23 p. 195, 24 p. 328, 22 p. 329, 23-24 p. 328, 25 p. 330, 26 p. 330,
p. 194, 25 p. 167, 26 p. 173, 27 p. 175, » P- 75, 2
J
27-30 p. 329, 31-33 p. 330, 34 p. 329, 35 p. 330,
29 p. 171. 36-39 p. 334, 40 p. 329, 41 p. 468, 42 p. 334, 43
p. 465, 44-45 p. 334, 46-47 p. 330,48-49 p. 334,50
PLATE V I p. 468, 51 p. 352, 52 p. 342, 53 [p. 342], 54 p. 35 , 2

1-3 p. 190,4 p. 150, 5 p. 152,6 p. 158,7 p. 162 n., 55 P- 35i, 56 p. 35o, 57 p. 478, 58-59 P- 469, 6*0
8
P - 59,9P- J5 ,10 p. 177,11 p. 177,12-14 p. 182,
! 8
p. 351, 61 p. 350, 62 p. 349, 63 p. 352, 64 p. 349,
15-16 p. 178, 17 p. 477, 18 p. 237, 19-20 p. 205, 65 p. 478, 66 p. 351, 67 p. 349, 68-69 P- 35i, 70
21 p. 208,22 p. 222,23 [p. 227], 24 p. 224,25 p. 231. p. 348, 71 p. 329, 72 p. 330.
512 PAGE REFERENCES F O R T H E PLATES

[cf. p. 373], 57 p. 373, 58 p. 387,59 [cf. p. 389 n. 8],

PLATE X I 60 p. 391, 61 p. 228, 62-64 p. 378, 65 [cf. p. 373],
i p. 330, 2-5 p. 470, 6 p. 351, 7 p. 352, 8 p. 468, 66 p. 364.
9— 10 p. 468, 11 p. 479, 12-13 P- 356, 14 p. 35i,
15-18 p. 357, 19 [p. 357], 20 p. 356, 21 p. 351, 22 PLATE X I I
p. 357,23 p. 358, 24 [cf. p. 357], 25 p. 357, 26 p. 469, 1-2 pp. 385-6,3 p. 382,4 p. 389,5 p. 463,6 p. 464,
27 p. 35i, 28 p. 470, 29 p. 352, 30—, 31 p. 351, 32 7-8 p. 479,9 p. 384,10—, n p. 476,12 p. 4 7 9 , 13

p. 342, 33 p. 479, 34 p. 349, 35 P- 334 n., 36 [cf. [p. 46311. 23], 14 p. 46311. 30, 15 p. 479, 16-17
p. 463 n. 7], 37-38 p. 467, 39 [P- 329], 40-41 p. 468, p. 389, 18 p. 479, 19 p. 371 n. 9, 20-21 p. 331, 22
42 p. 348, 43 p. 351, 44 p. 33411., 45 p. 364, 46 [p. 332 n. 6], 23 p. 371 n. 14, 24 [cf. p. 361 n. 13],
P. 349, 47 P- 468, 48— 49 P« 3<M, 5© p. 3 4, 51 6
25— 26 p. 381, 27 p. 336, 28 p. 192, 29 p. 187,
p. 369, 52 p. 350,53 p. 468, 54 p. 369, 55 p. 373, 56 30 p. 377, 31 p. 342, 32 p. 333, 33 p. 362.

For the C U P L E reprint the coins have

been reproduced 85 per cent of actual size.
PLATE I
PLATE I I
PLATE I I I
PLATE IV
PLATE V
PLATE V I
PLATE V I I
PLATE V I I I
PLATE X
PLATE X I I
 Books already available in this series

The Medieval Alexander GEORGE CARY

The Heroic Age H . M. C H A D W I C K

The Nationalities of Europe H. M. C H A D W I C K

The Beginnings of Russian History
N O R A K. C H A D W I C K

The Lollard Bible MARGARET DEANESLY

The Founder of Modern Egypt HENRY D O D W E I L

Netherlands India j . s. F U R N I V A L L
The Marian Exiles CHRISTINA GARRETT
-

Studies in Islamic Mysticism R. A. N I C H O L S O N

Experience and Its Modes MICHAEI OAKESHOTT

Shakespeare's Fight with the Pirates and

Shakespeare's Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More
A. W . P O L L A R D

Crusading Warfare R. a S M A I L
Anglo-Dutch Commerce and Finance in the
Eighteenth Century c. H. W I L S O N
Italy in the Making
G, F.-H. B E R K E L E Y A N D J . B E R K E L E Y

(three volumes)

The English Church and the Papacy

Z. N . B R O O K E
(three volumes)

The Growth of Literature

H. M . C H A D W I C K A N D N O R A K. C H A D W I C K

The Draining of the Fens H. C. D A R B Y

The Magyars in the Ninth Century c. A. M A C A R T N E Y
The Nature of Existence j . M C T . E. M C T A G G A R T
(two volumes)

The Background of Modern French Poetry

P. M A N S E L L J O N E S

The Audiencia of New Galicia in the Sixteenth Centur

j . H. P A R R Y
Science, Religion and the Future
C H A R L E S E. R A V E N

Uncertainty in Economics G. L. S. S H A C K L E
The Great Powers and the Balkans M. D. S T O J A N O V I C
Philosophical Theology F. R. T E N N A N T
(two volumes)

Foundations of the Conciliar Theory BRIAN TIERNEY

Cambridge University Press Library Edition:I S

A series of reissues, well printed and bound, of out-of-print

standard works from the Cambridge catalogue. The texts are
unrevised; apart from minor corrections these editions reproduce
exactly the last normal printing.jj^here desirable or possible the
author has provided a short prefatory note.

Books newly available in this series

English Works R O G E R A S C H A M
The French Tradition in Education H . c. B A R N A R D
The Roman Law of Slavery w. w. B U C K L A N D

Poetical Works G I L E S A N D P H I N E A S F L E T C H E R

[two volumes)
From Imperium to Auctoritas M I C H A E L G R A N T

British Trade and the Opening of China 1800-42

M I C H A E L G R E E N B E R G

Constitutionalism and the Changing World

C. H. M C I L W A I N

Equity: A Course of Lectures F. w. M A I T L A N D

The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely E D W A R D M I L L E R

The Development of the Soviet Economic System

A L E X A N D E R B A Y K O V

Studies in Islamic Poetry R . A . N I C H O L S O N

On the Poetry of Keats E . C . P E T T E T
The Neolithic Cultures of the British Isles
S T U A R T P I G G O T T

The Arte of English Poesie G E O R G E P U T T E N H A M

The History and Social Influence of the Potato
- REDCLI1 FE SALAMAN

The Photian Schism F R A N C I S D V O R N I K

(For books, already available see back flap)

C A M B R I D G E U N I V E R S I T Y PRESS
Bentley House, -200 Euston Road, London N . W . I
American Branch: 32 East 57th Street, New York, N . Y . 10022
Standard Book No. 521 07457 6

P R I N T E D I N G R E A T B R I T A I N