CHAPTER FOUR
IMPERIAL EXEMPLA
Military prowess, or virtus, is but one quality that characterized an efffec- tive emperor. Ideally, a ‘good’ emperor was not just a competent general but also displayed other virtues. These imperial virtutes were propagated throughout the Roman Empire by means of imperial panegyric, decrees, inscriptions, biographies, and coins.1 On coinage in particular, juxtaposi- tions of AVG or AVGG with the virtue and/or the imperial portrait on the obverse would connect the virtues mentioned on the reverses directly with the emperor(s). Not all emperors emphasized the same virtues on their coinage. For example, Elagabalus seems not to have felt the need to stress virtus, whereas his successor Severus Alexander did try to convince the Roman people of his military prowess by propagating it on his coins. The presence or absence of particular virtues on coins issued by diffferent emperors brings us to the question as to whether an imperial canon of virtues existed. But before elaborating on this, the concept ‘virtue’ must be clarifijied.2 Modern scholars investigating imperial virtues on coinage consider vir- tues to be personifijications with divine power – in other words, deifijied abstractions or, as Fears puts it, ‘specifijic impersonal numina’.3 For many, the terms ‘personifijication’ and ‘virtue’ are interchangeable.4 Indeed, vir- tues can be considered personifijications. Yet, not all personifijications are
1 Noreña, “The communication of the emperor’s virtues”, p. 153. 2 ‘But if one is to compare coins with other sources, particularly philosopically inspired ones (i.e. in talking of the virtues of the ideal statesman) it is vital to distinguish what is a virtue and what is not’, A. Wallace-Hadrill, “The emperor and his virtues”, Historia 30 (1981), pp. 298–323; p. 309. 3 J.R. Fears, “The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology”, p. 839. Personifijications received cultic honours and are therefore deities. They can be considered ‘impersonal nar- rowly prescribed functional godheads’ whereas the Olympians are ‘personalized multifac- eted gods’ (Fears, “The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology”, p. 840; see also above, p. 97). However, Liberalitas was the only virtue that was never the object of a state cult (Noreña, “The communication of the emperor’s virtues”, p. 161). 4 See for instance H. Mattingly, “The Roman ‘virtues’ ”, HTR 30 (1937), pp. 103–117; Fears, “The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology”; Wallace-Hadrill, “The emperor and his virtues”; C.J. Classen, “Virtutes Imperatoriae”, Arctos 25 (1991), pp. 17–39. 156 chapter four virtues.5 I therefore follow Noreña in separating ‘moral qualities inherent in men’ (i.e. virtues) from other personifijications.6 Yet, even after label- ing virtues as moral qualities inherent in men, the division between vir- tues and other personifijications stays somewhat vague. The classifijication could perhaps be clarifijied by explaining the link between the two types of personifijications. The emperor’s personal qualities benefijited the Roman Empire materially and immaterially. ‘Personal qualities’, then, are syn- onymous with virtues, while other personifijications imply ‘material and immaterial benefijits’.7 Virtues were thus the source of benefijits; because of the emperor’s liberalitas the Roman people received gifts in cash or kind (moneta or annona) from time to time and because of his providentia a fortunate age (saeculum feliciter) could dawn. The personifijications on imperial coinage that Noreña defijines as virtues are Aequitas, Clementia, Indulgentia, Iustitia, Liberalitas, Munifijicentia, Patientia, Pietas, Providentia, Pudicitia, and Virtus.8 The representational category ‘virtues’ is based on Noreña’s list of virtues, which means that coin types propagating one of these 11 virtues are considered to be within this particular representational category. Coins representing material and immaterial benefijits are distributed over several representational cat- egories. Various immaterial benefijits, summarized by the term saeculum aureum, will be discussed in the following chapter.
5 I follow Noreña in his defijinition of personifijication; he describes personifijications as ‘human fijigures that gave visual shape and concrete embodiment to a wide range of abstract ideas’, see Noreña, “The communication of the emperor’s virtues”, p. 153. See above, p. 97. 6 Noreña, “The communication of the emperor’s virtues”, p. 153. Virtus est animi habitus: Cicero, De inventione rhetorica 2.53. 7 According to Fears the cultic signifijicance of the worship of virtues at Rome was based on ‘power’ and ‘benefijits.’ He takes Concordia (no virtue, however, in my view since it is not a moral quality inherent in men) as an example: ‘Concordia is a numen, a specifijic divine power defijined by the production of a specifijic divine benefijit: the establishment of a state of harmonious cooperation among fellow citizens’ (Fears, “The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology”, p. 833). He bases this point on Cicero, De natura deorum 2.62 (‘Those gods therefore who were the authors of various benefijits which they bestowed, and indeed the names that I just now enumerated express the various powers of the gods that bear them’: Utilitatum igitur magnitudine constituti sunt ei di qui utilitates quasque gignebant, atque his quidem nominibus quae paulo ante dicta sunt quae vis sit in quoque declaratur deo). 8 Noreña, “The communication of the emperor’s virtues”, p. 155. The same eleven vir- tues (with the exception of Constantia) were also listed by Wallace-Hadrill (“The emperor and his virtues”, p. 310 with n. 56).