¹ Arrian, Discourses of Epictetus 3. 3. 3–4 and 4. 5. 15–18. For coin testing as an analogy, cf. 1. 20. 8–9 T. O. Mabbott, ‘Epictetus and Nero's coinage’, CP 36 (1941), 398–9 unnecessarily argues that Nicopolis had locally demonetized Nero's coinage. See further Millar, F., ‘Epictetus and the imperial court’, JRS 55 (1965), 141–8.Google Scholar

² On the function of coin types in general, see Grierson, P., Numismatics (1975), 72 ff.Google Scholar

³ The potency of French republican symbolism is vividly brought out by Agulhon, M., Marianne into Battle. Republican Imagery and Symbolism in France 1789–1880 (1981)Google Scholar, unfortunately saying little on the subject of coins.

⁴ See my remarks in Historia 30 (1981), 307–8Google Scholar and the discussion of Levick (1982), 104–7. For rejection of the term; cf. G. G. Belloni, Contributi del Istituto di Storia Antica [della Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore] IV (1976), 131 and ANRW 11, i, 997; Millar, F. in Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (ed. Millar, F. and Segal, E., 1984), 45. Sutherland (1976), 101Google Scholar now rejects the term ‘propaganda’; Sutherland (1983), 74 argues that ‘propaganda’ leads to misunderstanding if understood as the spreading of falsehood. Numismatists dealing with other periods do not fight shy of the term: cf. M. Jones, ‘The medal as an instrument of propaganda in late 17th and early 18th century Europe’, NC 142 (1982), 117–26. Cf. also for a later period, Scribner, R.W., For the sake of simple folk: popular propaganda for the German Reformation (1981).Google Scholar

⁵ Levick (1982). Cf. p. 107: ‘types were intended to appeal, not to the public, but to the man whose portrait as a rule occupied the obverse of the coins: they were a public tribute to a great individual’.

⁶ cf. S. R. F. Price, CR 29 (1979), 277. Suetonius, Aug. 94. 12 and Nero 25. 2 explicitly attribute the choice of particular types to the emperors concerned, but characteristically ‘collapse’ the processes of imperial responsibility by speaking of emperors as ‘doing’ what was done under them.

⁷ Crawford (1983).

⁸ Jones (1956). Note Crawford's sympathetic bibliographical mise-au-point in the reprint of this paper in The Roman Economy, 80 f.

⁹ As argued by Sutherland, ‘The Intelligibility of Roman Coin Types’, FRS 49 (1959), 46.

¹⁰ The public rituals associated with the imperial cult are of especial importance here; on the ceremonial aspect of this cult see Price, S. R. F., Rituals and Power. The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (1984), esp. 101 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ “cf. Sutherland (1976), 96 ff., esp. 107: ‘these themes … offered …information-and not just comment-on matters of major importance’ (my italics); Sutherland (1983), 79 disclaims the analogy with a newspaper, but insists on the dissemination of information.

¹² RIC 257 (dated to 28 B.C.) and 544 f. (28–7 B.C.); AMC 255 ff., 315; BNC 905 ff., 928 ff. Note that the sundial laid out on the Campus Martius as late as 9 B.C. celebrated the capture of Egypt: Buchner, E., Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus (1982)Google Scholar. Its purpose was evidently not informative.

¹³ Mark 12. 17; Matthew 22. 21; Luke 20. 24.

¹⁴ cf. Crawford (1983), 59: ‘One problem remains, to find an explanation for the diversity, imaginativeness and often great beauty of Roman imperial coin types … The reason, I think, is a combination of accident and human nature’.

¹⁵ I borrow the contrast of ‘figural’ and ‘discursive’ from Bryson, Norman, Word and Image. French painting of the Ancien Régime (1981)Google Scholar. His discussion of the very varied degrees and ways artists imbue visual images with content susceptible of being read ‘in words’ is suggestive in the present context. The presence of written legends on imperial coin types is in itself a clear pointer to strong ‘discursive’ content.

¹⁶ RRC, p. 712. Note that Crawford's contrast of functions is not a contrast of obv. and rev., which would be inappropriate to republican coinage.

¹⁷ RIC 11–13.

¹⁸ Sutherland (1983), 77.

¹⁹ Ammianus 26. 7. 10 – 11, describing the distribution of ‘aureos …nummos, effigiatos in vultum novi principis‘.

²⁰ Note that occasionally appeal is made to the virtues of the government in financial affairs, as by the type of LIBERALITAS AVGVSTI, while the types of MONETA and (I have argued) AEQVITAS refer directly to the operations of the mint (see ‘Galba's Aequitas’, NC 141 (1981), 20–39). Nevertheless, the appeal is to values external to the economic function of the coins themselves.

²¹ cf. ibid., 37–8; further Sutherland, NC 144 (1984),29–32.

²² cf. Historia 30 (1981), 319.Google Scholar

²³ Much important work has been done on Augustan coinage in the last generation. It is exceptionally well served for catalogues: see AMC, BNC, RIC; also Robertson, Anne S., Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet 1 (1962)Google Scholar. In addition note the important studies by Kraft, , reprinted in his Gesammelte Aufsätze (1978)Google Scholar by Sutherland, (1976) with ‘Some observations on the coinage of Augustus’, Quaderni Ticinesi 7 (1978), 163Google Scholar; Kunisz, A., Recherches sur le monnayage et la circulation monétaire sous le règne d'Auguste (1976).Google Scholar

²⁴ Millar, F. in Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, 44Google Scholar. The revolution in symbolic language applies to a much wider sphere in the visual arts than coinage, as has been brought out by the studies of Zanker, Paul, e.g. recently ‘Der Apollontempel auf dem Palatin’ in Città e Architettura nella Roma Imperiale (Analecta Romana, Supp. 10, 1983), 21 ff.Google Scholar

²⁵ RIC 323 ff; AMC 466 ff.; BNC 229 ff., etc.

²⁶ For wreath and legend as rev. cf. RRC 481/1 (aureus of Caesar, 44 B.C.); 538/2 (denarius of Octavian, 37 B.C.) and numerous civic and provincial issues under Augustus, e.g. AMC 925, 1005, 1039 (all Spain); 691 ff. (Eastern mints).

²⁷ RIC 250 ff.; AMC 190 ff.; BNC 1 ff. On this series, see Kraft (1978), 292–311; Sutherland, H. V.Quademi Ticinesi 1976, 156 ff.Google Scholar; Crawford, M. H., JRS 64 (1974), 247 ff.Google Scholar (arguing that the series starts in 34 B.C.).

²⁸ On these, see Albert, Rainer, Das Bild des Augustus auf den frühen Reichsprägungen (1981), 21–38Google Scholar with Burnett, A., Gnomon 55 (1983), 563–4.Google Scholar

²⁹ RIC 407 f. (Platorinus, 13 B.C.), 413 f. (Cossus Lentulus, 12 B.C.); AMC 301, 305; BNC 531 f., 548 f. For the dating, below n. 74.

³⁰ RIC 96 ff.; AMC 92 ff. (rejecting previous identification of obv. and rev.); BNC 1187 ff.

³¹ It is apposite to compare the wording of Horace's (approximately contemporary) Odes 4. 5, esp. 5 ff.: ‘lucem redde tuae, dux bone, patriae:/ instar veris enim vultus ubi tuus/ adfulsit populo, gratior it dies/ et soles melius nitent’ (‘return the light to your country, good leader; for when like spring your face shines on the people, the day passes better and the suns shine brighter’ n.b. the analogy between the face of the ruler and the face of the sun). In the precious metal coinage of the tresviri monetales ‘headless’ types are found in 16 B.C., when Augustus was absent from Rome (e.g. AMC 291 ff.)

³² On the complex issue of the authority to coin, see, e.g., Sutherland (1976), 5 ff.; Burnett (1977).

³³ cf. Burnett, A., JRS 68 (1978), 173 ff.Google Scholar reviewing AMC. Grant's two major studies of Augustan coinage (1946 and 1953) remain impressive for their grasp of the local coinages. For the republic, see now Crawford, M. H., Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic. Italy and the Mediterranean Economy (1985)Google Scholar; cf. 273 on Augustus.

³⁴ Burnett (1981a), 23–35, Burnett (1981b), Map 2 for a distribution map. Burnett informs me that his list is in need of revision, and now includes over 200 cities.

³⁵ See AMC 1068 ff. (JVLIA TRAD[ucta]); 1005 f. (MVN TVRIASO); 1154 ff. (Cnossus); 924 ff. (BILBILIS).

³⁶ AMC 837 ff. (Rhoemetalces); 879 ff. (Juba). For the relative popularity of the Capricorn, cf. Burnett (1981a), 6 and below n. 56.

³⁶ AMC 1037 ff. (Colonia Patricia Corduba); 1050 ff. (Emerita); 1060 f. (Italica); 1067 (Colonia Iulia Traducta); cf. Grant (1946), 220 and passim..

³⁸ cf. Tac, Ann. 1. 78 (Tarraco asks permission for cult to Divus Augustus); 4. 37 (permission sought unsuccessfully for temple to Tiberius). However, the occurrence of parallel formulae with the names of governors (PERM SILANI, etc.) makes it more likely that explicit authorization for the issues was sought.

³⁹ See Burnett (1981a), 57 ff. for a careful study of the coin portraits of Gaius and Lucius on local coinages. For a selection of honorific inscriptions, cf. Ehrenberg, V. and Jones, A. H. M., Documents illustrating the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius ², nos. 61–79Google Scholar; Braund, D., Augustus to Nero, nos. 28, 52–82Google Scholar for translations.

⁴⁰ On attitudes to the imperial image, see Price, S. R. F., Rituals and Power, 191–206Google Scholar (192 specifically on asylum); on desecration of the imperial image as maiestas, Bauman, R. A., Impietas in principem (1974), 82–92Google Scholar; Suet., Tib. 58 for the allegation that it became a capital charge to take into a brothel or latrine Tiberius’ effigy (‘nummo vel anulo effigiem impressam’); Seneca, de ben. 3. 26 tells the anecdote of a man who used a chamber pot while wearing a ring with Tiberius’ image, perhaps the source for Suetonius’ generalization.

⁴¹ 4” The following remarks lean heavily on Crawford's chapter on types and legends in RRC 11, 712–44.

⁴² RRC 234/1; cf. p. 728 and PBSR 41 (1973), 1–7.

⁴³ Thus Libertas first appears on a coin of 126 B.C., identified by the pileus, (RRC 266/1, moneyer C. Cassius, alluding to the Lex Cassia tabellaria), but is only identified by a legend as LIBERTas in 55 B.C. (RRC 428/2, moneyer Q. Cassius, alluding to the same law).

⁴⁴ RRC 422/1. Pliny, NH 36. 24. 113, ‘…M. Scauri, cuius nescio an aedilitas maxime prostraverit mores maiusque sit Sullae malum tanta privigni potentia quam proscriptio tot milium’, cf. ibid. 2. 4–3. 8. Earlier double-headed and double-tailed pieces are produced by L. Saturninus (RRC 317/1, 2, 104 B.C., without family reference), and by Vibius Pansa (RRC 342/1 and 2, 90 B.C., masks of Pan and Silenus, a punning family reference).

⁴⁵ RRC 433/2.

⁴⁶ RRC 434/1 and 2.

⁴⁷ Thus Weinstock, S., Divus lulius (1971), 275.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The head of Pompey was first struck by Minatius Sabinus in Spain in 46–5 B.C.: RRC 470/1. Sex. Pompey's own head appears in 45–4: RRC 477; Brutus as liberator strikes his own portrait in 43–2; RRC 506–8. Cassius, however, follows family tradition striking the head of Libertas (RRC 498–501), cf. above n. 43.

⁴⁹ e.g. RRC 443/1, mint moving with Caesar 49–8 B.C., obv. pontifical emblems, rev. elephant, CAESAR. Cf. RRC 456/1a, Caesar 47 B.C., where the pontifical emblems and also the legend are divided between the two faces, making the two typologically and grammatically continuous: obv. axe and culullus, CAESAR DICT, rev. jug and lituus, ITER.

⁵⁰ s° Thus RRC 429/1 Antony/Octavian; 429/2 Antony/ Lepidus; 495/28 Lepidus/Octavian; 490/2 Octavian/Caesar; 488/1 Antony/Caesar; 517/48 Antony/Lucius Antonius; 527/1 Antony/Octavia; and of course 543/1 Antony/Cleopatra.

⁵¹ It is in this period that the characteristic later style of a legend forming an outer circle round the head develops: e.g. RRC 493/1 obv. C.CAESAR.IMP.III. VIR.R.P.C.PONT.AVG.; rev. M. ANTONIVS.IM. III.VIR.R.P.C.AVG. For unaccompanied text, e.g. RRC 534/1, rev. M.AGRIPPA.COS.DESIG.; 537/1, obv. IMP.CAESAR.DIVI.F.III.VIR.R.P.C, rev. pontifical emblems.

⁵² RRC 490/1, 3, 4 (43 B.C.); 497, 1 (42 B.C.); 518/2 (41 B.C.). On these types, cf. Mannsperger, D., in Festschrift Ulrich Hausmann (ed. von Freytag, B., Mannsperger, D., Preyon, F., 1982), 331–7Google Scholar. Note that Octavian strikes a similar type with his own head obverse, and himself on horseback reverse in the ‘Actium’ series, RIC 262, AMC 200, BNC 82 f. The moneyer Stolo uses the equestrian statue as an obverse (RIC 344 f., BNC 300 f.), as does Vinicius (RIC 362, AMC 291 f.—here shown as rev.—BNC 357 f.).

⁵³ Sphinx: RIC 487 ff., AMC 676, BNC 927; cf. Suet., Aug. 50, ‘in diplomatis libellisque et epistulis signandis initio sphinge usus est, mox imagine Magni Alexandri, novissime sua, Dioscuridis manu sculpta, qua signare insecuti quoque principes perseverarunt’. Capricorn: RIC 488 f., AMC 677, BNC 916; Suet., Aug. 94. 12, ‘nummumque argenteum nota sideris Capricorni quo natus est percusserit’. On these cistophori, dated c. 27–6 B.C., see Sutherland, C. H. V., The Cistophori of Augustus (1970).Google Scholar

⁵⁴ cf. K. Kraft, ‘Zum Capricorn auf den Münzen des Augustus’, JNG17 (1967), 17 ff. = Kraft (1978), 262 ff.; Dwyer, E. J., ‘Augustus and the Capricorn’, Röm. Mitt. 80 (1973), 59 ff.Google Scholar; E. Buchner, Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus (1982) with my observations in FRS 75 (1985), 247.

⁵⁵ So Crawford, RRC 11, p. 727 f.

⁵⁶ cf. above, n. 36. The Capricorn is also a popular motif in Kleinkunst of the period; cf. T. Hölscher, Jahrb. Zentralmus. Mainz 12 (1965), 59 ff. and Klio 67 (1985), 96 f.

⁵⁷ cf. Suet., Aug. 50, cited above n. 53.

⁵⁸ So Price, Rituals and Power, 58 f.

⁵⁹ For the honours of 27 B.C., see the series attributed to Spain, RIC 26 ff., AMC 21 ff., BNC 1091 ff. The close thematic connection between the coinage and the Res Gestae is observed by Burnett (1981a), 11 f.

⁶⁰ Burnet, , Gnomon 1983, 564Google Scholar rightly observes that implicit identification with deities ceases after the Actium series. For the later use of Apollo Actiacus see the Lyons series of 15 B.C.and later, RIC 170 ff., AMC 127 ff., BNC 1394 ff., with Kraft (1978), 311 ff. On Augustus’ exploitation of Apollo symbolism, Carettoni, G., Das Haus des Augustus auf dem Palatin (1983), with 75 (1985), 247–8Google Scholar; Jucker, H., ‘Apollo Palatinus und Apollo Actius auf augusteischen Münzen’, Mus. Helv. 39 (1982), 82 ff.Google Scholar

⁶¹ cf. Historia 1981, 307 ff.Google Scholar

⁶² These dates are now more or less agreed: see Kraft (1978), 42 f.; Burnett (1977), 49 f.; Sutherland, RIC 31 ff. Against the unorthodox datings of Pink and Panvini Rosati, see Kraft (1978), 342 f. and recently M.D. Fullerton, ‘The Domus Augusta in imperial iconography of 13–12 BC’, AFA 89 (1985), 473–83.

⁶³ It is possible that Q. Rustius issued his types in celebration of Augustus’ Fortuna Redux either in the year before the college of Petronius (so Burnett (1977), 49 f.), or in the same year (so Kraft and Sutherland). The reference to the return of the Parthian standards in 20 B.C. on Petronius’ issues points to a date of 19 or 18 for the college. The altar to Fortuna Redux was ‘constituted’ on the day of Augustus’ return, 12 October 19 B.C. Rustius’ coins will belong to late 19 or 18 B.C. Why Rustius does not fit into the scheme of colleges remains obscure.

⁶⁴ RIC 278 ff.; AMC 262 ff.; BNC 106 ff.

⁶⁵ Mattingly in BMC 1, pp. ci ff. is helpful on this.

⁶⁶ Several of Durmius’ types are reproductions of Greek types: cf. BMC 1, p. civ n. 1.

⁶⁷ The deities concerned are: Liber, Feronia (Petronius); Sol, Virtus (Aquillius); Honos, Hercules (Durmius). Aquillius also uses a triskelis with Medusa head as an obverse. There might of course be covert reference to Augustus in some of these types: note that the Ara Fortunae was dedicated before the temple of Honos and Virtus (RG 11 ). But Aquillius’ Sol reproduces a type struck by his (adoptive) ancestor Mn. Aquillius, cos. 101 (RRC 303/1); his Virtus reproduces a type of the later Mn. Aquillius of 71 B.C. (RRC 401/1); his reverse type of warrior and Sicilia (RIC 310) reproduces the reverse of the latter; and the Triskelis and Medusa refer to the same event, the suppression by Mn. Aquillius, cos. 101, of a Sicilian slave war, though derived from a type of L. Lentulus of 49 B.C. (RRC445/1). The implication that families under Augustus kept copies of coins issued by their ancestors is borne out by the types of Piso and Rustius (below nn. 69 and 109).

⁶⁸ RRC 556/1.

⁶⁹ Q.Rustius (RIC 321 f., AMC 258 ff., BNC 220 ff.) adheres to a comparable pattern. He strikes heads of two Fortunae obv., and an Augustan design rev. (victory and shield, or the altar to Fortuna Redux). The Fortunae are topical, but apparently overlaid with a family reference: the ram's-head finials on the bar under the goddesses on the commoner variant recall the fine ram of the rev. of an ancestor L. Rustius (RRC 389/1, 76 B.C.), and the legend FORTUNAE ANTIAT points to the family's own Antiate origins (cf. Syme, , Roman Papers 11, 599Google Scholar; Wiseman, T. P., New Men, 257Google Scholar).

⁷⁰ The types of 17 B.C. (Sanquinius and Stolo) refer to the Ludi Saeculares, but even here family references may be found: cf. below, Appendix §4 on the ancilia and apex of Stolo.

⁷¹ Two Antistii held office as moneyers, C. Antistius Vetus (son of the cos. 30 B.C.) in 16, and C. Antistius Reginus in c. 13. Both employ two personal reverses: a scene of Tarquin's treaty with Gabii, FOEDUS P.R. QUM GABINIS (RIC 363–4, 411, cf. BNC 365–7, both very rare), and a commoner type of priestly emblems (RIC 367–8, 410, AMC 299, 302–3, BNC 369–71, 542 ff.). The Antistii presumably came from Gabii (cf. PIR², Antistius 771). Vetus was a pontifex, and both his children, as Velleius remarks (2. 43. 4), were members of priestly colleges. Vetus (unlike Reginus) goes one step further towards displacing Augustus: he strikes two deities in the place of imperial heads as obv. But his deities are Venus and Victoria, closely modelled on those of Octavian's Actium series, and should doubtless be taken as ‘imperial’ in reference (cf. RIC 367–9, AMC 299, BNC 361a/b, 369–71).

⁷² RIC 350 ff., AMC 289 ff., BNC 330 ff.

⁷³ RIC 358, AMC 297 f., BNC 345 f. The sense of the obv. is ‘Vows offered to Iuppiter Optimus Maximus by SPQR on behalf of the safety of Imperator Caesar because through him the Republic is in a more ample and tranquil state’. The rev. is taken to mean ‘To Imp. Caesar Augustus by common consent’ (i.e. COMMuni CONSensu); I prefer ‘To Imp. Caesar Augustus the common saviour’ (i.e. COMMuni CONServatori).

⁷⁴ The coinage of C. Marius Tro. with its joint celebration of Agrippa and Augustus (RIC 400, BNC 521) is more plausibly placed with the similar types of Sulpicius Platorinus (RIC 406–7, BNC 537–9) in 13 B.C., the year of the renewal of Agrippa's powers, than in 17, the year of the birth and adoption of Lucius; see Fullerton, loc. cit. (n. 62), 475 ff. convincingly contra Pink, NZ 1946, 120 ff.; also Burnett (1981a), 57. 7s Julia, Gaius and Lucius feature together

⁷⁵ Julia, Gaius and Lucius feature together on an issue of Marius, RIC 404–5, BNC 526, BMC 106 f. I take the head of Diana (identified by a quiver) on the rev. of Marius’ coin, RIC 403, BNC 522–4, BMC 104, as also a portrait of Julia.

⁷⁶ This unique specimen was published (with illustration) by Vermeule, C., Numismatica 1 (1960), 5–11Google Scholar, and is included now in RIC 413, BNC, p. 114; for a large illustration, Burnett (1981b), 28 fig. 29a. A very similar scene is used by Galba for the theme LIBERTAS RESTITVTA (RIC 479); for later recurrence of the theme (‘Roma/Italia/Orbs Terrarum restituta’) see Vermeule, loc. cit., S. Weinstock, Divus Iulius, 46 f. It would seem captious to deny in Cossus Lentulus’ type an illustration of the ‘restoration of the republic’.

⁷⁷ Kraft (1962), 7 ff. pointed out that the continuation of the titulature AAAFF implies, on the face of it, continued involvement in the production of precious metal.

⁷⁸ W. Eck, ‘Senatorial self-representation: developments in the Augustan period’ in Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects, 129 ff.

⁷⁹ Eck, loc. cit., 138.

⁸⁰ Eck, loc. cit., 140; cf. Kienast, D., Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch, 414Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Ville, G., La gladiature en Occident des origines à la mort de Domitien (1981), 121–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸² cf. Eck, loc. cit. (n. 78), 152 n. 16 for this and further illustrations of the point.

⁸³ M. Sanquinius and P. Licinius Stolo are the only moneyers to issue in both precious and bronze, in 17 B.C. The mystery of why only they do so is compounded by the failure of their third colleague, whoever he was, to do the same. Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, usually assigned to this college, issued only in bronze. Note that Kraft's dating scheme has two separate colleges in 16 B.C., one issuing in precious, one in bronze, a solution which in my view is unacceptable.

⁸⁴ See Kraft (1962); Sutherland, Rev. Num. 1965, 94 ff.; Bay (1972); Baldus, H.R., Chiron 3 (1973), 441 ff.Google Scholar; Kunisz, A., Recherches sur le monnayage et la circulation monétaire sous le régne d'Auguste (1976), 18 ff.Google Scholar; Sutherland (1976), 5 ff.; Burnett (1977); T. Leidig, FNG 31/2 (1981/2),55–76; Sutherland, RIC, p. 32; Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, 261 f.

⁸⁵ Staatsrecht 11, 602, 1025–8; III 1146.

⁸⁶ So F. Millar, ‘The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces’, FRS 56 (1966), 141–8.

⁸⁷ The survey of the literature by Leidig (above n. 84) shows that Kraft's thesis is almost universally rejected; he himself revives the reference to type content by regarding SC as a gloss on the imperial titulature and thus an endorsement by the senate of imperial legitimacy.

⁸⁸ This is not to suggest that SC may not in other contexts refer to type content; cf. below n. 93.

⁸⁹ The typological similarity of both portrait and legend between Carisius’ obverses and those of the asses of the moneyers suggests that the former might have been modelled on the latter. This supports a date of 23 B.C. for the moneyers’ asses. I owe this point to T. R. Volk.

⁹⁰ I here follow D. Kienast, Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch, 327 n. 62 (giving examples of this pattern from Carthage, Sardinia, Messana, Lilybaeum and Sinope). For the Dium coin, see Grant (1946), 282 (attributed to Pella). Note also the EX DD of Carteia (AMC 1020–8, cf. PI. I, 11) and the DD of Parium (AMC 1193). For Cnossus, cf. above with n. 35. Paestum strikes anomalously under Augustus with PSSC (? ‘Pecunia Signata Senatus Consulto’).

⁹¹ Wruck, W., Die Syrische Provinzialprägung von Augustus bis Traian (1931)Google Scholar; Grant (1953), 7 f.; C. Howgego, ‘Coinage and military finance: the imperial bronze coinage of the Augustan east’, NC 142 (1982), 1 ff.

⁹² cf. Grant (1953), 14 ff.

⁹³ With the notable exception of the EX SC of Nero's early silver coinage: Griffin, M., Nero: the End of a Dynasty (1984), 120 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Arguably, EX SC in this context refers to type content: cf. C. Clay, NZ 96 (1982), 24 ff.

⁹⁴ Crawford, RRC 606 ff.

⁹⁵ Bay (1972), supported by Crawford, , Coinage and Money, 261Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Burnett (1977), 45 f.

⁹⁷ Burnett, A. M., Craddock, P. T., Preston, K., ‘New light on the origins of orichalcum’, in Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Numismatics, Berne, September 1979 (1982), 263 ff.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ See P. A. Brunt, ‘The role of the senate in the Augustan regime’, CQ 34 (1984), 423 ff., esp. at 427 on the development of the senate as a source of new law.

⁹⁹ Frontinus, de Aqu. 2. 98 ff. = FIRA 1, no. 41.

¹⁰⁰ Dio 54. 26. 5–8 shows that the vigintivirate had been reorganized before 13 B.C. Mommsen, , Staatsrecht 11, 592 ff.Google Scholar associated the abolition of the iiviri viis extra urbem purgandis with Augustus’ taking over of the cura viarum in 22 B.C.

¹⁰¹ See Appendix.

¹⁰² Tac, Ann. 2. 43 on father and son.

¹⁰³ cf. Burnett (1977), 41 f.

¹⁰⁴ For Piso's service in Spain in 26–5, Syme, , Roman Papers 11, 739Google Scholar, by inference from Tac, Ann. 3. 16 (45 years’ service up to A.D. 20). It may even be that the father owed his consulship, offered unsolicited at the late age of 56, to the success of the son.

¹⁰⁵ RIC 390 ff., AMC 469, BNC 433; Grant (1953), 102 ff.; Kraft, JNG 3/4 (1952/3),74; Burnett (1977), 48 ff.; Sutherland, Quaderni Ticinesi 1978, 173 ff. and RIC, p. 71.

¹⁰⁶ Pliny, NH 34. 1; Isidore, Origines 16. 17; Lydus, de mensibus 1. 20.

¹⁰⁷ So Grant (1953), 103, citing Livy 1. 19 and Dionysius, Rom. Ant. 2. 62 f. for parallelism between Numa and Augustus. There is no need to follow Grant in seeing reference to the Secular Games, as the Livy passage shows.

¹⁰⁸ Laus Pisonis 3 and 15; Horace, Ars Poet. 291 f.; Plut., Numa 21.

¹⁰⁹ RRC 446/1, with p. 738. For deliberate copying of possibility of a later, even post-Augustan, date for the family types, cf. above n. 67.

¹¹⁰ For this positive interpretation of the restoration of the republic as a strategy to the autocraft's benefit, cf FRS 72 (1982), 42; FRS 75 (1985), 250.

¹¹¹ Pliny, NILL 34. 2. 2–4. On Sallustius, cf. below Appendix.

¹¹² 4 B.C. is Mattingly' date; 3 B.C. Kraft'; I suggest below 2 B. C. as a possibility. Note that G. F. Carter and T. V. Buttrey, ANSMN 22 (1977), 64 f. raise the possibility of a later, even post-Augustan, date for the quadrantes, though without good grounds.

¹¹³ RIC 469–71,AMC 658 ff.; BNC 878 ff. The Tiberian portraits are secuely dated by trib. pot. to A.D. 10–11; the Augustan to A.D. 11–12.

¹¹⁴ RIC, Tiberius 33 (A.D. 15–16) for the first instance.

¹¹⁵ RIC, Tiberius 39. Note the aptness of Tacitus’ expression ‘adroganti moderatione’, Ann. 1.8.

¹¹⁶ OCIS. 1, no. 339, 11. 43–5, with L. Robert, revNum6 15 (1973), 43–53; cited by Crawford (1982), 56.

¹¹⁷ A point urged on me by Oswyn Murray; cf. my remarks at NC 1981, 36.

¹¹⁸ cf. above no. 77.

¹¹⁹ See the illuminating discussion of Agulhon, op. cit. (n. 3), 62 ff. My own account is much simplified. Note too the account of how the revolution of 1792 resulted in a search for a new image (16 f.): the Abbé Grégoire submitted a report to the Convention with detailed proposals for a new state seal, ‘so that our emblem, circulating all over the globe, should present to all peoples the beloved image of Republican liberty and pride’..

¹²⁰ See Kraft (1978), 42 ff.; Bay (1972); Burnett (1977). Giard follows Kraft in BNC, pp. 41–3; Sutherland is more hesitant, following Mattingly in AMC, and Kraft, only with reservations in RIC, p. 32. Crawford, , Coinage and Money, 258 ff.Google Scholar cautiously backs Burnett.

¹²¹ The hoards of Velia, Livno and Calvatone (Burnett (1977), 49 f., (1981a), 9) support the primacy of Piso's college, and tell against Kraft's date of 15 for it. The evidence from military camps deployed by Kraft himself (1978, 47) only bears on the pattern of circulation in later reigns, and shows the greater popularity of the portrait asses.

¹²² Metrological analysis of Augustan bronze by Carter and Buttrey (above n. 112) tends to support Mattingly's broad sequence, but the basis of analysis is narrow.

¹²³ Namely Cn. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 7), C. Asinius Gallus (cos. 8), C. Marcius Censorinus (cos. 8), T. Quinctius Crispinus Sulpicianus (cos. 9), L. Vinicius (cos. 5), C. Antistius Vetus (cos. 6), Cossus Cornelius Lentulus (cos. 1), L. Lentulus (cos. 3), L. Caninius Gallus (suff. 2), [L. Aelius] Lamia (cos. A.D. 3), L. Licinius Nerva Silianus (cos. A.D. 7), Sex. Nonius Quinctilianus (cos. A.D. 8), Volusus Valerius Messalla (cos. A.D. 5), L. Apronius (suff. A.D. 8).

¹²⁴ Silius, colleague of Lamia and Annius, is surely P. Silius (suff. A.D. 3). For the six remaining possibles, see below.

¹²⁵ T. P. Wiseman, ‘Pulcher Claudius’, HSCP 74 (1970), 213 f.

¹²⁶ But note Syme, , Roman Papers 1, 262Google Scholar, tentatively suggesting an unknown brother of Volusus Messalla.

¹²⁷ PIR identified the moneyer with the father of the cos. suff. of A.D. 18, but before the latter's date was known. J. Morris (below n. 129), 330 confidently identifies moneyer and consul. On Rubellius (together with Sisenna Statilius Taurus and Livineius Regulus), see Syme, , Roman Papers 111, 1350 ff.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ All the above identifications are suggested by Wiseman, loc. cit. (n. 125).

¹²⁹ See the important analysis of Morris, John, ‘Leges Annales under the principate’, Listy Filologické 87 (1964), 316–37Google Scholar. At 324 f.he criticizes and tacitly rejects Kraft's redating.

¹³⁰ ILS 5050, 1. 150 (in the record of the Ludi).

¹³¹ Birley, A. R., The Fasti of Roman Britain (1981), 8Google Scholar: the vigintivirate might be held before, after, even inbetween, service as military tribune.

¹³² Syme, , Roman Papers 111, 1229Google Scholar, inferring birth in c. 43 from Tac., Ann. 3. 16. Syme has no hesitation in placing his moneyership in 23 (1231).

¹³³ R. G. M.Nisbet and M. Hubbard, Commentary on Horace Odes Book II at p. 36 observes Sallust's mines, but do not make further use of the point.

¹³⁴ Nisbet-Hubbard, 38; Ulpian, Dig. 34. 2. 27. 6 contrasts massa, lamna and signatum (sc. argentum). Petronius 57–8 for the colloquial use.

¹³⁵ cf. Pliny, Nil 7. 56. 197, ‘aes conflare et temperare’. The ‘use’ which makes metal shine is conventionally the circulation of currency: Ovid, Am. 1.8. 51, ‘aera nitent usu’.

¹³⁶ cf. Nisbet-Hubbard, 35. Both gold and silver were mined in the territory of the Salassi; but Sallust cannot have put silver into circulation in the late 20s, when no coin was being struck, cf. Crawford, Coinage and Money, 257.

¹³⁷ So Nisbet-Hubbard I, pp. xxv ff. Yet possibly it would be better to abandon this traditional date for 22. I am grateful to Professor Nisbet for advice on this whole question.

¹³⁸ Dio 53. 25. 3–5 for the date. Roman involvement in the mines of the Salassi considerably predates 25: Strabo 4. 6. 7 (p. 205 f.) describes the endless quarrels between the tribe and first their neighbours, then the Romans, over their mines, leading to their eventual deracination. (Strabo only mentions gold, not copper mines.) Note that the general Varro is identified by some with the evanescent consul of 23. There may be further links concealed.