DOCSLIB.ORG

Olivier Hekster Emperors and Empire Marcus Aurelius and Commodus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Olivier Hekster Emperors and Empire Marcus Aurelius and Commodus Olivier Hekster Emperors and Empire Marcus Aurelius and Commodus No two Roman rulers better exemplify the difference between a study of emperors and one of em- pire than Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus. A study of emperors cannot help but note the massive differences between the ruler who was deemed the best of potential rulers, and his son, who by general consensus was one of Rome’s worst tyrants. The polarisation is pronounced, with the two successive rulers being depicted in widely divergent ways. At the same time studies of empire and emperorship may well note the continuity from one reign to the next in many aspects of rule. On a number of levels, the empire continued to function under the latter ruler much as it had done under the former. Yet even in studies of empire the change from the reign of Marcus to that of his son is often remarked upon. Historiography is of importance here. There is of course Gibbon’s famous dictum: “If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom […] A just but melancholy reflection imbittered, however the noblest of human enjoyments. They must often have recollected the instability of a happiness which depended on the character of a single man. The fatal moment was perhaps approaching, when some licentious youth, or some jealous tyrant, would abuse, to the destruction, that absolute power, which they had exerted for the benefit of their people.”1 For Gibbon, the accession of Commodus changed the empire, setting in motion the very events that would lead to its fall. He even explicitly blames Marcus for this error in judgement, stating that “the monstrous vices of the son have cast a shade on the purity of the father’s virtues. It has been objected to Marcus, that he sacrificed the happiness of millions to a fond partiality for a worthless boy; and that he chose a successor in his own family, rather than in the republic.”2 Previously already Niccolo Macchiavelli had stressed the differences for a ruler between the Empire under Marcus and that under Commodus (or under Nerva rather than Domitian): “Let a Prince therefore place himself in the times from Nerva to Marcus, and let him compare these with 1 Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1 (London 1776) ch. 3. 2 Gibbon, Decline and Fall (as in n. 1) chap. 4. 318 Olivier Hekster those which preceded and followed; and afterward let him select in which period he would want to be born, or in which he would want to reign.”3 The notion, of course, goes back further than that, and similar sentiments were expressed by the ancients, particularly Cassius Dio, who noted how Commodus’ behaviour limited Marcus’ happi­ ness. Dio famously ended his account of the life of Marcus with the words: “our history now de­ scends from a kingdom of gold to one of iron and rust, as affairs did for the Romans of that day” (Cass. Dio 72 [71], 36, 4). Likewise, Julian the Apostate raised only one criticism against Marcus, whom he had elected by the gods as the most excellent emperor of Roman history, namely “his error in judgement in the case of his son”, when “he failed to see that his son was ruining the empire as well as himself ” (Caes. 312 A–B). Julian gave the wise Marcus a perfect answer even to this, and has him quote the excuse of Zeus himself whilst rebuking Ares: “Long ago, I should have smitten you with a Thunderbolt, had I not loved you because you are my son. Besides, I had never thought my son would prove so wicked. Youth ever vacillates between the extremes of vice and virtue, and if in the end he inclined to vice, still he was not vicious when I entrusted the empire to him.”4 The point here is not to simply cite once more the obvious sources discussing Marcus and Commodus, but to highlight how they explicitly assumed that the differences of character and style of rule from one emperor to the next had far­reaching impact on the very functioning of the empire as a whole. In such a mode of viewing, the differences between Marcus and Commodus became of the utmost importance. And these differences were pronounced5. It is, however, relevant to keep in mind that the biographical pictures which have been painted of both rulers in ancient times often consisted of, as it were, topical snapshots, in which father and son were placed against one an­ other. This is the case for Dio, and even more strongly for Herodian. For the first, Commodus’ reign was the first that Dio had actually experienced in person, and there is a recognisable change in the work at the beginning of the reign6. Marcus’ death, as stated above, becomes the breaking point in Dio’s conception of the history of the empire; the moment in which “the kingdom of gold” ended. Thus, Commodus was made into an “anti­emperor”; the direct opposite of his filo­senatorial father Marcus Aurelius7. Herodian, in his turn, had as one of the crucial themes in his work the important division between good emperors and tyrants, which dictated the portrayal of both emperors8. A 3 Macchiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, 1, 10, 21: “Pongasi, adunque, innanzi un principe i tempi da Nerva a Marco, e conferiscagli con quelli che erano stati prima e che furono poi; e dipoi elegga in quali volesse essere nato, o a quali volesse essere preposto.” 4 Julian., Caes. 334 D; cf. Illiad 5, 897. 5 For a description of Marcus Aurelius’ life and times, see amongst other works Werner Eck, Marcus Aurelius, DNP 7 (1999) 870–875; Pierre Grimal, Marc Aurèle (Paris 1991); Anthony R. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (London 21987); Richard Klein (ed.), Marc Aurel (Darmstadt 1979). On Commodus see Falko von Saldern, Studien zur Politik des Commodus (Rahden 2003); Olivier Hekster, Commodus. An Emperor at the Crossroads (Amsterdam 2002); Maria Gherardini, Studien zur Geschichte des Kaisers Commodus (Dissertationen der Universität Graz 27, Wien 1974); Fulvio Grosso, La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (Turin 1964). Still of use is Greg R. Stanton, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus. 1962–1972, ANRW II 2 (1975) 478–549. 6 Manfred G. Schmidt, Die ‘zeitgeschichtlichen’ Bücher im Werk des Cassius Dio – von Commodus zu Severus Alexander, ANRW II 34.3 (1997) 2591–2649, 2602, 2608–2610. 7 Urbano Espinosa Ruiz, El reinado de Cómmodo. Subjetividad y objetividad en la antigua historiografía, in: Gerión 2 (1984) 113–149, 116. 8 Herodian. 1, 1, 4: τυράννων τε καὶ βασιλέων; Gabriele Marasco, Erodiano e la crisi dell’impero, ANRW II 34.4 (1998) 2837–2927, 2857. Herodian applies the term τύραννος to Commodus (2, 1, 8; 2, 4f.); cf. Martin Zimmermann, Kaiser und Ereignis. Studien zum Geschichtswerk Herodians (München 1999) 29: “Darüber Emperors and Empire 319 good emperor, of which Marcus, as starting point of Herodian’s history, was the key-example, ruled the empire in the form of an ἀριστοκρατία (2, 3, 10). A tyrant, into which Commodus rapidly descended, behaved like an unmitigated autocrat. Add to these authors the even more outspoken Historia Augusta – in which the senatorial bias is as pronounced as can be – and it was always go- ing to be clear how Marcus’ and Commodus’ lives were going to be juxtaposed9. Indeed, one might suggest that for Dio, Herodian and the unknown author of the Historia Augusta, the blackening of Commodus’ reputation was partly an exercise to make Marcus shine by comparison. Yet ancient bias is not the only reason for the widely divergent reputation of both rulers. Through the ages, there has also been a marked difference in the aspects that post-classical historians chose to pay attention to from one ruler to the next. In the case of Marcus Aurelius, for instance, much attention tends to go to his writing. His self-musings and letters are at the front of much scholarship on the philosopher-emperor. Still, the “Meditations” were probably never meant to be published, though one can see references to Marcus’ thoughts already in the writings of contemporary authors, implying the text may have become known very soon after his death. The history of the text up to the tenth century is brief- ly set out by Birley, who concludes that “by the fourth century the work was undoubtedly well known”10. Themistius for the first times mentions the work directly when addressing the emperor Valens in 364: “You have no need of the Precepts of Marcus, or any excellent saying of any particular emperor”11. We cannot properly trace the work in the following ages, but the “Meditations” resur- face in the late ninth or early tenth century.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resettlement Into Roman Territory Across the Rhine and the Danube Under the Early Empire (To the Marcomannic Wars)*
    Eos C 2013 / fasciculus extra ordinem editus electronicus ISSN 0012-7825 RESETTLEMENT INTO ROMAN TERRITORY ACROSS THE RHINE AND THE DANUBE UNDER THE EARLY EMPIRE (TO THE MARCOMANNIC WARS)* By LESZEK MROZEWICZ The purpose of this paper is to investigate the resettling of tribes from across the Rhine and the Danube onto their Roman side as part of the Roman limes policy, an important factor making the frontier easier to defend and one way of treating the population settled in the vicinity of the Empire’s borders. The temporal framework set in the title follows from both the state of preser- vation of sources attesting resettling operations as regards the first two hundred years of the Empire, the turn of the eras and the time of the Marcomannic Wars, and from the stark difference in the nature of those resettlements between the times of the Julio-Claudian emperors on the one hand, and of Marcus Aurelius on the other. Such, too, is the thesis of the article: that the resettlements of the period of the Marcomannic Wars were a sign heralding the resettlements that would come in late antiquity1, forced by peoples pressing against the river line, and eventu- ally taking place completely out of Rome’s control. Under the Julio-Claudian dynasty, on the other hand, the Romans were in total control of the situation and transferring whole tribes into the territory of the Empire was symptomatic of their active border policies. There is one more reason to list, compare and analyse Roman resettlement operations: for the early Empire period, the literature on the subject is very much dominated by studies into individual tribe transfers, and works whose range en- * Originally published in Polish in “Eos” LXXV 1987, fasc.
    [Show full text]
  • Tertullian on the Paradox of the Roman Amphitheatre Games: De Spectaculis 22
    VOX PATRUM 36 (2016) t. 65 Bogdan BURLIGA* TERTULLIAN ON THE PARADOX OF THE ROMAN AMPHITHEATRE GAMES: DE SPECTACULIS 22 As an co-author I recently worked upon the introduction and commentary on the Polish translation of Martial’s collection of epigrams, the famous Liber spectaculorum (On the Spectacles), written on the occasion of the inaugura- tion of the amphitheatrum Flavianum (later known as Colosseum) in the year 801, during the reign of the Emperor Titus2. The preparation of the commen- tary was for many reasons an exceptionally advantageous experience, and one of the most challenging problems that emerged at that time was the question: how was the Romans’ attitude towards cruelty?; how to understand their ap- parent fascination with it? Was it only a terrifying (for us) allure with mayhem, carnage and blood? Should one take it as a macabre grand-guignol entertain- ment, aimed at enjoying (by presenting the scenes of terror) the voracious populus Romanus and bloodthirsty plebs Romana, and consequently arranged by the magistrates, politicians or nobles as a tool by which the editores gained popularity and wielded power or control – both in the urbs aeterna as in other municipal cities? Or, could we ever hope to come nearer to the understanding of the cruel practices by expressing our moral judgment: disgust, detestation and rejection, as did openly Michael Grant in his Gladiators?3 How far should historians proceed in their investigations to avoid the risk of falling into an open moralizing? The more questions, the more doubts and uncertainties. Moral abhorrence, repulsion and condemnation are understandable enough to any sensitive man studying the phenomenon of the Roman ludi circenses now4: * Dr hab.
    [Show full text]
  • Violence Against Women on the Column of Marcus Aurelius
    Violence Against Women on the Column of Marcus Aurelius The Column of Marcus Aurelius is an imperial Roman monument of uncertain date, like- ly either 176 or 180 CE. Its elements (pedestal, spiral frieze, and statue) and its content (a mili- tary narrative) are largely modeled on the earlier Column of Trajan. One major difference be- tween the columns is that the Column of Marcus Aurelius shows physical violence much more often and more explicitly than the Column of Trajan. This pattern of increased violence on the Column of Marcus Aurelius extends into non-military contexts that involve women. On the Column of Trajan, women never appear alone: they are unthreatened and accompanied by other women and by husbands and/or children. Meanwhile on the Column of Marcus Aurelius, women are more often isolated and sometimes victims of rape and murder. Only one scene on the Col- umn of Marcus Aurelius appears to represent intact unthreatened families. In this scene, XVII, emperor Marcus Aurelius stands on an upper register, while a group of non-Romans gathers on the lower register. The group is composed of families, many with young children. Eugen Petersen, a German scholar, documented the column’s frieze, publishing a series of photographs and descriptions in 1896. In his companion to the frieze, Petersen sug- gests that “perhaps” scene XVII may represent families being separated, though he gives no evi- dence for this claim (Petersen vol. 1, 59). More recently, Paul Zanker has analyzed the scene as part of his work on women and children on the Column of Marcus Aurelius.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Good Emperors Nerva – Marcus Aurelius HIS 207 Oakton Community College Mitilineos November 17, 2011 Reminders
    Five good emperors Nerva – Marcus Aurelius HIS 207 Oakton Community College Mitilineos November 17, 2011 Reminders All material due by 11/29/2011 Final study guide – 11/29/2011 Today: ◦ Film ◦ Boudicca ◦ Five good emperors Boudicca and the Iceni Roman Britain C.E. 60 The evidence ◦ Tacitus Agricola ◦ Archaeology not helpful Iceni ◦ Celtic tribe in East Anglia ◦ farming Prasutagus, king of the Iceni Women among the Iceni ◦ power and positions of prestige ◦ Owned land ◦ Right to divorce Prasutagus ◦ Client/king ◦ Left kingdom to two daughters and Nero Roman law prohibits inheritance by women Members of ruling class enslaved Boudicca flogged, her daughters raped The Iceni look to Boudicca for leadership Revolt begins Supported by neighboring tribes, the Iceni numbered about 100,000 Attacked Camulodunum (Cambridge) and Colchester Successful for awhile due to guerilla tactics, use of chariots, lack of respect Last victory at Londinium (London) 230,000 faced smaller Roman force (Midlands – location unknown) 70,000 killed as Roman weapons and tactics under Paulinas prevail Suicide c. 61/62 Nerva 96-98 Period of five good emperors generally prosperous Chosen by senate Recalled exiles Modified taxes Tolerated Christians Adopted Trajan as his successor Purchased land from wealthy and rented them to the needed Promoted public education including poor children Trajan 98-117 Born in Spain Father was a consul Patrician status Adopted by Nerva in 97 Extended the empire As emperor Deified Nerva Optimus Augustus – the
    [Show full text]
  • The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
    The meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Originally translated by Meric Casaubon About this edition Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus was Emperor of Rome from 161 to his death, the last of the “Five Good Emperors.” He was nephew, son-in-law, and adoptive son of Antonius Pius. Marcus Aurelius was one of the most important Stoic philosophers, cited by H.P. Blavatsky amongst famous classic sages and writers such as Plato, Eu- ripides, Socrates, Aristophanes, Pindar, Plutarch, Isocrates, Diodorus, Cicero, and Epictetus.1 This edition was originally translated out of the Greek by Meric Casaubon in 1634 as “The Golden Book of Marcus Aurelius,” with an Introduction by W.H.D. Rouse. It was subsequently edited by Ernest Rhys. London: J.M. Dent & Co; New York: E.P. Dutton & Co, 1906; Everyman’s Library. 1 Cf. Blavatsky Collected Writings, (THE ORIGIN OF THE MYSTERIES) XIV p. 257 Marcus Aurelius' Meditations - tr. Casaubon v. 8.16, uploaded to www.philaletheians.co.uk, 14 July 2013 Page 1 of 128 LIVING THE LIFE SERIES MEDITATIONS OF MARCUS AURELIUS Chief English translations of Marcus Aurelius Meric Casaubon, 1634; Jeremy Collier, 1701; James Thomson, 1747; R. Graves, 1792; H. McCormac, 1844; George Long, 1862; G.H. Rendall, 1898; and J. Jackson, 1906. Renan’s “Marc-Aurèle” — in his “History of the Origins of Christianity,” which ap- peared in 1882 — is the most vital and original book to be had relating to the time of Marcus Aurelius. Pater’s “Marius the Epicurean” forms another outside commentary, which is of service in the imaginative attempt to create again the period.2 Contents Introduction 3 THE FIRST BOOK 12 THE SECOND BOOK 19 THE THIRD BOOK 23 THE FOURTH BOOK 29 THE FIFTH BOOK 38 THE SIXTH BOOK 47 THE SEVENTH BOOK 57 THE EIGHTH BOOK 67 THE NINTH BOOK 77 THE TENTH BOOK 86 THE ELEVENTH BOOK 96 THE TWELFTH BOOK 104 Appendix 110 Notes 122 Glossary 123 A parting thought 128 2 [Brought forward from p.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads/Wp988j82g]
    [https://commons.warburg.sas.ac.uk/downloads/wp988j82g] Miglietti, Sara. The censor as reader : censorial responses to Bodin’s methodus in counter-Reformation Italy (1587-1607) / Sara Miglietti. 2016 Article To cite this version: Miglietti, S. (2016). The censor as reader : censorial responses to Bodin’s methodus in counter- Reformation Italy (1587-1607) / Sara Miglietti. History of European Ideas , 42(5), 707–721. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2016.1153289 Available at: https://commons.warburg.sas.ac.uk/concern/journal_articles/d217qp48j DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2016.1153289 Date submitted: 2019-07-22 Copyright is retained by the author. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the User Deposit Agreement. The Censor as Reader: Censorial Responses to Bodin’s Methodus in Counter- Reformation Italy (1587-1607) SARA MIGLIETTI Department of German and Romance Languages and Literatures, Johns Hopkins University Gilman Hall 481 3400 N Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218 (USA) Phone: +1-202-848-6032 Email: [email protected] 1 The Censor as Reader: Censorial Responses to Bodin’s Methodus in Counter- Reformation Italy (1587-1607) * SARA MIGLIETTI Department of German and Romance Languages and Literatures Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD Summary This essay investigates censorial responses to Jean Bodin’s Methodus (1566) in Counter-Reformation Italy, using evidence from Italian libraries and archives to shed new light on the process that led to the inclusion of the work in the Roman Expurgatory Index of 1607. By examining the diverse, and sometimes conflicting, opinions that Catholic censors expressed on Bodin’s text and the ‘errors’ it contained, the essay shows that even a relatively cohesive ‘reading community’ such as that of Counter-Reformation censors could nurture fundamental disagreement in evaluating the content and dangerousness of a book, as well as in devising appropriate countermeasures.
    [Show full text]
  • Bullard Eva 2013 MA.Pdf
    Marcomannia in the making. by Eva Bullard BA, University of Victoria, 2008 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Greek and Roman Studies Eva Bullard 2013 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii Supervisory Committee Marcomannia in the making by Eva Bullard BA, University of Victoria, 2008 Supervisory Committee Dr. John P. Oleson, Department of Greek and Roman Studies Supervisor Dr. Gregory D. Rowe, Department of Greek and Roman Studies Departmental Member iii Abstract Supervisory Committee John P. Oleson, Department of Greek and Roman Studies Supervisor Dr. Gregory D. Rowe, Department of Greek and Roman Studies Departmental Member During the last stages of the Marcommani Wars in the late second century A.D., Roman literary sources recorded that the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius was planning to annex the Germanic territory of the Marcomannic and Quadic tribes. This work will propose that Marcus Aurelius was going to create a province called Marcomannia. The thesis will be supported by archaeological data originating from excavations in the Roman installation at Mušov, Moravia, Czech Republic. The investigation will examine the history of the non-Roman region beyond the northern Danubian frontier, the character of Roman occupation and creation of other Roman provinces on the Danube, and consult primary sources and modern research on the topic of Roman expansion and empire building during the principate. iv Table of Contents Supervisory Committee .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Herodian History of the Roman Empire Source 2: Aulus Gellius Attic
    insulae: how the masses lived Fires Romans Romans in f cus One of the greatest risks of living in the densely populated city of Rome, and particularly in insulae was that of fires. Fires broke out easily (due to people cooking on open flames), spread easily (due to buildings being constructed out of wood, and buildings being built so closely together) and were hard to control. Several times large parts of the city went up in flames. It was not unusual for imperial funds to make good losses of impoverished wealthy citizens in the wake of a fire. Source 1: Herodian History of the Roman Empire In this passage from Herodian riots have broken out in the city of Rome, and soldiers combatting civilians started setting fire to houses. The soldiers did, however, set fire to houses that had wooden balconies (and there were many of this type in the city). Because a great number of houses were made chiefly of wood, the fire spread very rapidly and without a break throughout most of the city. Many men who lost their vast and magnificent properties, valuable for the large incomes they produced and for their expensive decorations, were reduced from wealth to poverty. A great many people died in the fire, unable to escape because the exits had been blocked by the flames. All the property of the wealthy was looted when the criminal and worthless elements in the city joined with the soldiers in plundering. And the part of Rome destroyed by fire was greater in extent than the largest intact city in the empire.
    [Show full text]
  • Marcus Aurelius' Rain Miracle: When and Where?1 Péter Kovács
    šTUDIJNÉ ZVESTI ARCHEOLOGICKÉHO ÚSTAVU SAV 62, 2017, 101 – 111 MARCUS AURELIUS’ rAIN MIRACLE: WHEN AND WHERE?1 Péter Kovács Key words: Marcus Aurelius, Pannonia, rain miracle, Barbaricum, Marcomannic wars Kľúčové slová: Marcus Aurelius, Pannonia, zázračný dážď, barbari- kum, markomanské vojny Marcus Aurelius’ rain miracle: when and where? In his paper the author deals with the two most important problems of the rain miracle during Marcus Aurelius’ campaign against the Quadi: where and when did it happen. After examining the written sources (esp. the accounts of Cassius Dio, the vita Marci of the Historia Augusta, Tertullianus and Eusebius and Marcus Aurelius’ forged letter) and the depictions of the Antonine Column in Rome (scenes XI and XVI), the author comes to the conclusion that there were two miracles (lightning and rain miracles: the former one in the presence of the emperor) the year could be 172 AD (but 171 cannot be excluded either) and the miracle happened probably in the borders of the Quadi and the Cotini. The ancient and medieval sources on Marcus Aurelius’ Marcomannic-Sarmatian wars usually highlight two events.2 The first of these occurred during the first war between AD 169 and 175, when divine intervention – a lightning and rain miracle – saved the Roman troops, which were surrounded by the enemy and were suffering from a water shortage. Thunderbolts struck the Germans, while rain soothed the Romans’ suffering. The Column of Marcus Aurelius depicted the miracles in two different scenes narrating the first Roman campaign in the Barbaricum (Scenes XI and XVI; Fig. 1; 2), clear testi- mony that the lightning and rain miracle were two different events.3 Among the written sources, only the account in the vita Marci in the Historia Augusta separates them: fulmen de caelo precibus suis contra hostium machinamentum extorsit, su<i>s pluvia impetrata, cum siti laborarent (24.4).
    [Show full text]
  • Plants & Natural History
    Plants, Natural History, Animals & Medicinal Manuscripts Old Manuscripts & Incunabula - Specialists in Facsimile Editions Facsimile Editions PO Box 6019 FDR Station, New York NY 10150 Monday, March 2, 2020 tel/fax 212/ 758-1946 • www.omifacsimiles.com • [email protected] Manuscripts arranged by library location. Please inquire about availability of titles with no price. MANUSCRIPTS (by location) 1447 Etymachie-Traktat. Ein Todsündentraktat in der katechetisch-erbaulichen Sammelhandschrift Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, 2º Cod.160. Farbmikrofiche-Edition. Einführung zur 'Etymachia' von Nigel Harris. Einführung zu den katechetischen Texten und Beschreibung der Handschrift von Werner Williams-Krapp. [Augsburg, Staats- & Stadtbibl., 2º Cod.160] [3-89219-036-4] Codices Illuminati Medii Aevi, 36. Munich, 1995. 17 x 25 cm, 50 pp, 3 fiches. Paper MS of 104 fols., dated 1447, from Swabia. Miscellany of 18 catechetical tracts, written by the scribe Petrus Willen of Neuburg. Only the ”Etymachia”, i.e., the mental or spiritual battle, treating the 7 cardinal virtues and vices, is illustrated with 14 paintings (fol. 76-104): Armed chevaliers and ladies as their allegoric personifications are riding on animals (dromedary, panther, bear, unicorn, elephant, dragon, etc.), showing additional emblematic signs on helmets, shields, and suits of armour, according to the descriptions of the corresponding texts. Quotations of patristic authorities and biblical examples refer to the tradition of Latin sources. Linen. € 240 1542 Model Book of Giovannino de Grassi. [Bergamo, Civica Biblioteca ”Angelo Mai”, ms. VII. 14] Luzern, 1998. 17 x 22.7 cm, 62 pp + commentary. This work is the best known and most precious manuscript in the Angelo Mai Library in Bergamo; it is commonly regarded as the most important example of late Italian gothic art.
    [Show full text]
  • A Remark on the Name of the Emperor Lucius Aurelius Verus in Egypt 448 ADAM ŁUKASZEWICZ
    INSTITUT DES CULTURES MÉDITERRANÉENNES ET ORIENTALES DE L’ACADÉMIE POLONAISE DES SCIENCES ÉTUDES et TRAVAUX XXVI 2013 ADAM ŁUKASZEWICZ A Remark on the Name of the Emperor Lucius Aurelius Verus in Egypt 448 ADAM ŁUKASZEWICZ In documents from Roman Egypt the emperor Lucius Aurelius Verus (AD 161–169)1 appears obviously as co-regent of Marcus Aurelius and is mentioned only together with Marcus Aurelius. In Greek papyri a frequent formula reads: Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Μάρκος Αὐρήλιος ʼΑντωνῖνος Σεβαστὸς καὶ Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ Λούκιος Αὐρήλιος Οὐῆρος Σεβαστός.2 The occurrence of Lucius Verus is rare in Egyptian texts. As far as the Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions are considered, J. von Beckerath quotes only the examples from R. Lepsius’ Denkmäler.3 The name of Lucius Verus occurs as: Rwky Awrry wr-aA anx-Dt. The names printed in the Denkmäler were copied from three cartouches which are situ- ated on the southern wall in a small western temple of Marcus Aurelius at Philae, in a row together with the cartouches of Marcus Aurelius, with two preserved cartouches containing the titles Αὐτοκράτωρ Καῖσαρ: Awtkrtr Ksrs. Above these cartouches of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus there is a fragment of a Greek inscription with a date (Pharmouthi 30 of an unknown year) referring to the joint rulers: ] κυρίων Αὐτοκρατόρων Φαρμοῦθι λ ἐπ΄ ἀγαθῷ. New instances of the name of Lucius Verus are available now in the publication by J. Hallof.4 They came from Kom Ombo and Philae. The inscriptions can be found in the main temple of Kom Ombo and in the gate of Hadrian at Philae.
    [Show full text]
  • Collector's Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage
    Liberty Coin Service Collector’s Checklist for Roman Imperial Coinage (49 BC - AD 518) The Twelve Caesars - The Julio-Claudians and the Flavians (49 BC - AD 96) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Julius Caesar (49-44 BC) Augustus (31 BC-AD 14) Tiberius (AD 14 - AD 37) Caligula (AD 37 - AD 41) Claudius (AD 41 - AD 54) Tiberius Nero (AD 54 - AD 68) Galba (AD 68 - AD 69) Otho (AD 69) Nero Vitellius (AD 69) Vespasian (AD 69 - AD 79) Otho Titus (AD 79 - AD 81) Domitian (AD 81 - AD 96) The Nerva-Antonine Dynasty (AD 96 - AD 192) Nerva (AD 96-AD 98) Trajan (AD 98-AD 117) Hadrian (AD 117 - AD 138) Antoninus Pius (AD 138 - AD 161) Marcus Aurelius (AD 161 - AD 180) Hadrian Lucius Verus (AD 161 - AD 169) Commodus (AD 177 - AD 192) Marcus Aurelius Years of Transition (AD 193 - AD 195) Pertinax (AD 193) Didius Julianus (AD 193) Pescennius Niger (AD 193) Clodius Albinus (AD 193- AD 195) The Severans (AD 193 - AD 235) Clodius Albinus Septimus Severus (AD 193 - AD 211) Caracalla (AD 198 - AD 217) Purchase Emperor Denomination Grade Date Price Geta (AD 209 - AD 212) Macrinus (AD 217 - AD 218) Diadumedian as Caesar (AD 217 - AD 218) Elagabalus (AD 218 - AD 222) Severus Alexander (AD 222 - AD 235) Severus The Military Emperors (AD 235 - AD 284) Alexander Maximinus (AD 235 - AD 238) Maximus Caesar (AD 235 - AD 238) Balbinus (AD 238) Maximinus Pupienus (AD 238) Gordian I (AD 238) Gordian II (AD 238) Gordian III (AD 238 - AD 244) Philip I (AD 244 - AD 249) Philip II (AD 247 - AD 249) Gordian III Trajan Decius (AD 249 - AD 251) Herennius Etruscus
    [Show full text]