We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
There is no novelty in suggesting the importance of Roman coins as a source for the study of Roman history; a considerable number of works have explored the possibilities of the subject. The chief problem, however, has always lain in appreciating how far they can take us in an understanding of events: the coins are after all often as tendentious as the literary sources are sometimes alleged to be–or even more so. Further, when the historian moves from attempting to explain the legends to such matters as interpreting features of the portraiture, he is moving on to very subjective ground: for example, what may be the significance of the fact that on Nerva's Divvs Avgvstvs coins, the portrait of Augustus begins to look uncannily like that of Nerva himself? Or again, what are we to make of the fact that the obverse portrait on early coins of Trajan bears a resemblance to that of Nerva?
1. A list cannot be exhaustive, but four studies will demonstrate the possibilities: Sutherland, C. H. V., Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, 31 B.c.–A.d. 68 (London, 1951)Google Scholar, and the same author's The Emperor and the Coinage: Julio-Claudian Studies (London, 1976)Google Scholar; Grant, M., From Imperium to Auctoritas (Cambridge, 1948)Google Scholar, and the same author's Roman History from Coins (Cambridge, 1958).Google Scholar
2. The chief concordances of Roman imperial coins are: Mattingly, H., Sydenham, E. A., Sutherland, C. H. V. (edd.), The Roman Imperial Coinage (London, 1923–)Google Scholar; referred to as RIC; Mattingly, H., A Catalogue of Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (London, 1923)Google Scholar; referred to as BMC Emp.
Nerva's DIVVS AVGVSTVS coins are given in BMC Emp. (Nerva), 149 ff.Google Scholar
3. On this question see most recently Trell, B. L., ‘Architecture on Ancient Coins’, Archaeology 39 (1976), 6 ff.Google Scholar
4. Grant, (Roman History from Coins, pp. 63 f.)Google Scholar has pointed out the importance for architectural reasons of Claudius' coin commemorating Artemis of Ephesus and that of Antoninus Pius which commemorates an otherwise unknown restoration by him of the ill-known Temple of Divus Augustus.
5. For example BMC Emp. (Trajan), 971.Google Scholar
6. BMC Emp. (Trajan), 944Google Scholar; we might compare with this Commodus' coin with the legend HERCVLI ROMANO AVGVSTO (RIC (Commodus), 638).
7. Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge, 1974), nos. 448, 2e and 3.Google Scholar
8. RIC (Augustus), 19 and 98.Google Scholar
9. BMC Emp. (Trajan), p. 215.Google Scholar
10. RIC (Nero), pp. 169 ff.Google Scholar
11. RIC (Augustus), 359 ff.Google Scholar; (Claudius), 70; (Nero), 438.
12. As one would expect in view of Tiberius' near-obsessive respect for Augustus' memory (G & R 13 (1966), 207 ff.).Google Scholar
13. See Hill, P. V., The Undated Coins of Rome, A.d. 98–148 (London, 1970), p. 146.Google Scholar
14. See Balsdon, J. P. V. D., The Emperor Gaius (Oxford, 1934), pp. 160 ff. for reference.Google Scholar
15. RIC (Gaius), pp. 116 fGoogle Scholar. A similar point emerges from Philo's report of a conversation between Macro, and Gaius, (Leg. 41–58).Google Scholar
16. The subject of Christian symbolism on the Constantinian coinage has been fully discussed by Alföldi, A., ‘Das Kreuzsepter Konstantins der Grossen’, Schweizer Münzblätter 4 (1954), 81–6Google Scholar, and Bruun, P., ‘The Christian Signs on the Coins of Constantine’, Arctos 3 (1956), 5–35.Google Scholar
17. RIC (Tiberius), 30 and 31Google Scholar: for a discussion of them see Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘Two “Virtues” of Tiberius: A Numismatic Contribution to the History of his Reign’, JRS 28 (1938), 129 ff.Google Scholar
18. Ann. 3.50, 3; 56,1.
19. Ann. 4.30,5.
20. RIC (Claudius), 1 ff.Google Scholar: see Sutherland, C. H. V., Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, p. 129.Google Scholar
21. RIC (Claudius), 22 ff.Google Scholar
22. e.g. Kraay, C. M., ‘The Coinage of Vindex and Galba A.d. 68 and the continuity of the Augustan Principate’, Num. Chron. 6 9 (1949), 129 ff.Google Scholar; Mattingly, H., ‘Verginius at Lugdunum?’, Num. Chron. 6 14 (1954), 32 ff.Google Scholar
23. For this subject see CQ 17 (1967), 371 f.Google Scholar
24. Balsdon, , op. cit., p. 207Google Scholar; Suetonius, , Cal. 23, 1Google Scholar; RIC (Gaius), 42.Google Scholar
25. BMC Emp. (Vespasian), p. 130.Google Scholar
26. Tac. Hist. 4.8, 1 and Suet, , Div. Vesp. 7 (Miracles)Google Scholar; Tac. Agr. 13.5 and Suet. Div. Vesp. 5 (Fate).Google Scholar
27. Suet. Dom. 7Google Scholar (see Webster, G., The Roman Imperial Army (London, 1969), pp. 256 ff.).Google Scholar
28. Pliny, Chiefly, Panegyricus 5–10Google Scholar; Cassius Dio 68.1–4; Tac. Agr. 3 and Hist. 1.1.
29. Suet. Dom. 23.1: ‘Occisum eum populus indifferenter, miles gravissime tulit statimque Divum appellare conatus est, paratus et ulcisci, nisi duces defuissent: quod quidem paulo post fecit, expostulatis ad poenam pertinacissime caedis auctoribus. Contra senatus adeo laetatus est…’
30. It is further argued by some (e.g. Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), ii. 576)Google Scholar that Tacitus has written up elements of Galba's reign, especially his oration on the occasion of the adoption of Piso Licinianus (Hist. 1.15–16), with Nerva's situation in mind.
31. See Dio 65.7.2 for the tax, and 68.1.2 for Nerva's action.
32. See Syme, R., ‘The Imperial Finances under Domitian, Nerva and Trajan’, JRS 20 (1930), 63.Google Scholar
33. For discussions see Syme, R., art. cit. 55–70Google Scholar and Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘The State of the Imperial Treasury at the Death of Domitian’, JRS 25 (1935), 150–62.Google Scholar
34. The coin TVTELA ITALIAE which appeared to refer to it has been designated as false (BMC Emp. (Nerva), p. 21).Google Scholar
35. Dio 68.2.1–2.
36. RIC (Trajan), 93.Google Scholar
37. Dio 68.2.3.
38. For the cult of Consus, see Ogilvie, R. M., The Romans and Their Gods (London, 1969)Google Scholar, where the connection of the cult with horse-racing is stressed.
39. Merlin, A., Les Revers monétaires de l'empereur Nerva (Paris, 1906), pp. 25 ff.Google Scholar
40. BMC Emp. (Nerva), Introduction p. xxxv.Google Scholar
41. Dio 68.1.2–3.
42. The fact that Nerva also produced an Aequitas-type is undoubtedly relevant to this. Dio's picture receives confirmation from Pliny Ep. 9.13. Nerva's own attitude to Domitian's reign is perhaps best seen in his Edict on Domitian's benefactions (Pliny, , Ep.Google Scholar 10.58. 7–10).
43. RIC (Tiberius), 22.Google Scholar
44. Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, pp. 97–8.Google Scholar
45. e.g. Tac. Ann. 1.75.1.
46. Martial 10.72.8: ‘Non est hie dominus, sed imperator/sed iustissimus omnium senator.’
47. Dio 57.8.2.
48. Pliny, , Pan.Google Scholar 78.2–3: cf. Victor, , Caes.Google Scholar 12.1 (‘Quid enim Nerva Narniensi prudentius magisque moderatum?’).
49. Tac. Hist. 1.15–16. See Flach, D., Tacitus in der Tradition der antiken Geschichtesschreibung (Göttingen, 1973), pp. 196 ff.Google Scholar
50. See my article, ‘Principatus ac Libertas’, Ancient Society 9 (1978)Google Scholar, forthcoming. Appropriate to this idea is another observation of Martial (11.5.14): ‘Si Cato reddatur, Caesarianus erit.’
51. BMC Emp. (Nerva), Introduction, p. xlix.Google Scholar
52. BMC Emp. (Vespasian), 178.Google Scholar
53. See Hill, P. V., op. cit., pp. 23 f.Google Scholar; BMC Emp. (Trajan), 53.Google Scholar
54. Dio 68.3.2 (Calpurnius Crassus); Philostratus, Vit. Soph.Google Scholar 1.15 (Danube).
55. e.g. Pan. 6.3; 7.3; 8.4.
56. Pliny, , Pan.Google Scholar 8.2. and ILS 2720 (Syme, R., Tacitus i. 11)Google Scholar. Cf. Leo, p. 283, 6–9Google Scholar Cram—ἐκ Пαιονίας δὲ ἀγγελία ἐпινικίων ἐλθοûσα пαρὰ Τραιανοû…
57. Pan. 8.5: ‘Inritamentum istud irarum et fax tumultus fuisset, nisi incidisset in te.’ It is presumably in the context of Trajan's ‘claims’ that Victor (Epit. 13.6) says of Trajan's friend, Licinius Sura, ‘cuius studio imperium arripuerat’. Sura may well have been consul in 97 (Syme, R., Tacitus, ii. 641.).Google Scholar
58. Pan. 9.1. and 10.
59. Syme, R., Tacitus i.12.Google Scholar
