ACTA CLASSICA LIII (2010) 181-205 ISSN 0065-1141 PERSONIFICATIONS ON THE COINAGE OF VESPASIAN (AD 69-79) T.R. Stevenson University of Queensland ABSTRACT This paper surveys personifications on Vespasian’s coinage in terms of their novelty and significance. It finds that there is more novelty than has been allowed, especially in the proliferation of personifications following Nero’s demise and in the number of unprecedented legends. Many of the personifications have a traditional character, so that the overall message seems to be one of continuity with the Augustan model of a ‘good’ emperor. Finally, among the particular themes which are promoted by the personifications, it seems that there is a fundamental desire to confirm the stability and strength of the succession to Vespasian in the person of his two sons, Titus and Domitian. Introduction Roman coin types exhibit a rich variety of personifications, whose number increases markedly after the fall of Nero.1 Aside from cultural and philoso- phical reasons for this phenomenon, there is also a political dimension, which has been variously interpreted. In respect of personifications on the coinage of Vespasian, the aims of this paper are threefold: (i) to argue – in contrast to the general scholarly view – that there is significant novelty among the personifications employed on Vespasian’s coinage; 1 Abbreviations used in this paper: BMCRE I-II = H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vols. I-II (London 1923-30). MW = M. McCrum & A.G. Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors (Cambridge 1961). OLD = P.G.W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford 1982). RIC I-II = H. Mattingly & E.A. Sydenham, Roman Imperial Coinage, vols. I-II (London 1923-26). RIC I2 = C.H.V. Sutherland, Roman Imperial Coinage, vol. I: Augustus to Vitellius (2nd edition. London 1984). 181 (ii) to emphasize that many of the personifications have a traditional character, so that the overall message seems to be one of continuity with the Augustan model of a ‘good’ emperor; and (iii) to argue that one particularly important message of the personifi- cations is that the succession is secure – Vespasian’s sons, Titus and Domitian, provide a guarantee of future peace and prosperity. A new era in the use of personifications Apart from personifications of their gods, which will not be dealt with here, the Romans distinguished between personified states or conditions, such as concordia and felicitas, and ‘virtues’ or ‘moral qualities of the soul’, such as virtus and pietas.2 Numismatists often tend to combine these states and qualities rather imprecisely, though there is some justification for doing so, in that both types of personifications appear on the reverse of Roman coins, with the emperor’s head occupying the obverse. The blessed states or qualities often manage to evoke the more traditional, republican side of imperial power (e.g. ‘Libertas’, ‘Virtus’), though their proliferation from the Flavian era onward has also been interpreted in terms of growing emphasis on the more charismatic side, tending towards the divine.3 In comparison to Julio-Claudian practice, Vespasian’s coinage exhibits more personifications, on more reverse types, rotated more rapidly than before. Most of these personifications were adopted from coins of the civil war period, especially from the short reign of Galba, and as a result it has become normal to stress continuity and lack of originality.4 Laffranchi, Mattingly and Grant thought that the aim of Vespasian’s types was to commemorate historical anniversaries or notable episodes from republican or Augustan times. This thesis has been criticized, but the importance of 2 On this distinction, see the references and discussion in A. Wallace-Hadrill, ‘The emperor and his virtues’, Historia 30 (1981) 298-323, at 308-10; cf. J.R. Fears, ‘The cult of virtues and Roman imperial ideology’, ANRW 2.17.2 (1981) 827-948, esp. 830-33. Earlier studies of ‘virtues’ on Roman coinage include M.P. Charlesworth, ‘The virtues of a Roman emperor: propaganda and the creation of belief’, PBA 23 (1937) 105-33; H. Mattingly, ‘The Roman virtues’, HTR 30 (1937) 103-17. 3 For the latter interpretation, see Fears (note 2) 889, 938; Wallace-Hadrill (note 2) 298, 314-19; D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, vol. 2.1 (Leiden 1991) 473. 4 E.g. BMCRE II, xxxi-lxix. T.V. Buttrey, ‘Vespasian as moneyer’, NC Ser. 7, 12 (1972) 89-109, at 92-101 lists the Galban precedents. 182 Augustus can hardly be denied altogether.5 Buttrey considers the role of mint officials in the selection process, and of administrative factors such as the availability of metals and the convenience of employing types used previ- ously. He follows up, however, with the relatively unconvincing suggestion that Vespasian might have served as a moneyer under Tiberius, and in that capacity might have acquired a numismatist’s love of diverse coin types.6 Ramage is open to the influence of convenience and antiquarian interest, but argues that these ‘were not the only or even the major motives behind Vespasian’s issues.’7 He thinks that Vespasian shared Galba’s attitude to ‘tyrants’ like Nero and Vitellius, and goes on to make a detailed case for the systematic denigration of tyrannical predecessors, especially Nero and Vitellius, on Vespasian’s coinage.8 Such theories are quite right to imply Vespasian’s ultimate responsibility for the coins and to focus closely on the conditions of his reign, for each coin type was an official document which reflected on the emperor, 5 L. Laffranchi, ‘Un centenario numismatico nell’antichità’, RIN, Vol. 24 (1911) 427- 36; BMCRE II, xliii; M. Grant, Roman Anniversary Issues (Cambridge 1950). For criticism, see Buttrey (note 4) 89-90, who shows that Vespasian’s coinage neglects to commemorate many of the famous achievements of Augustus’ reign, and employs a greater range of designs than earlier scholars suggest. Emmanuelle Rosso has recently taken a generous view of Augustan influence. She argues in particular that Vespasian’s Jewish victories are depicted in terms which evoke the Battle of Actium: ‘Le theme de la Res publica restituta dans le monnayage de Vespasien: pérennité du “modèle augustéen” entre citations, réinterprétations et dévoiements’, in F. Hurlet & B. Mineo (edd.), Le principat d’Auguste: réalités et représentations du pouvoir autour de la Res publica restituta (Rennes 2009) 209-42. 6 Buttrey (note 4) 106-09. Buttrey’s portrait of Vespasian as an enthusiastic numismatic antiquarian has not won support, but note the opinion of I. Carradice, ‘Towards a new introduction to the Flavian coinage’, in M. Austin, J. Harries & C. Smith (edd.), Modus Operandi. Essays in Honour of Geoffrey Rickman (London 1998) 93- 117, at 96: ‘Whatever the particular explanation for this unprecedented series of imitative coin designs may be, Buttrey is surely right to remind us of the likely influence in the choice of coin types of the mint itself, as an institution with no doubt a reference collection of old coins, dies, papers, and experienced professional workers.’ 7 E.S. Ramage, ‘Denigration of predecessor under Claudius, Galba, and Vespasian’, Historia 32 (1983) 201-14, at 201. 8 Ramage (note 7) 201, 209 points to Vespasian’s formal damnatio memoriae of Nero, apparently following the policy of Galba (Tac. Hist. 1.16.2; 1.78). This hardly means, of course, that Galba’s attitude was the only determining factor. On damnatio memoriae, see E.R. Varner, Mutilation and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (Leiden 2004) 1-20 on damnatio as an imprecise concept, 46-85 on Nero’s damnatio. 183 regardless of who actually chose the design.9 On the other hand, it seems unlikely that a top-down ‘propaganda’ model governed the selection of types. Although the emperor’s agreement can be taken for granted, and may well have been tested directly at times, the process was probably more bottom- up, with selections normally made by mint officials under fairly loose supervision, and determined by both political trends and administrative considerations.10 There were other, more important calls on an emperor’s time. Instead of acting as a primary means of political persuasion, and powerful in each individual case, the coinage was evidently of subsidiary importance in comparison to other media, such as speeches, ceremonies, festivals and monuments.11 Indeed, there is reasonable agreement that Vespasian’s coin types are unoriginal and banal, mere copies or adaptations of former types from the mint’s huge repertoire, as though the new emperor and/or his staff took little interest in their selection and relied little on coin types to advertise imperial ideals or programmes.12 Yet a detailed study of the 9 Wallace-Hadrill (note 2) 308; Carradice (note 6) 97; C.F. Noreña, ‘The communication of the emperor’s virtues’, JRS 91 (2001) 146-68, at 159. 10 For a definition of ‘propaganda’, see G. Jowett & V. O’Donnell, Propaganda and Persuasion (London 2006) 7: ‘[propaganda is a form of communication that] deliberately and systematically attempts to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.’ 11 There is, of course, a huge body of scholarship on the ‘propaganda’ content of Roman imperial coinage. For a measured defence of the traditional (top-down) model, see C.H.V. Sutherland, ‘The purpose of Roman imperial coin types’, Rev. Num. 25 (1983) 73-82. An alternative (bottom-up) model is proposed by B. Levick, ‘Propaganda and the imperial coinage’, Antichthon 16 (1982) 104-16; cf. A. Wallace- Hadrill, ‘Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus’, JRS 76 (1986) 66-87, at 67-70; C.