³ Cic. Mur. 11: an cum sedere in equis triumphantium praetextati potissimum filii soleant, . . . (‘Sons usually ride on the horses [of their fathers’ chariots] when they parade in a triumph, . . .’). Cf. Dio (in Zonaras, Epitome 7.21): καὶ οὐ μόνος ἐν τῷ ἅρματι, ἀλλ’ ἄν γε καὶ παῖδας ἢ καὶ συγγενεῖς τινας εἶχε, κἀκείνων τὰς μὲν κόρας καὶ τὰ ἄρρενα τὰ νεογνὰ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀνεβίβαζε, τοὺς δὲ ἁδροτέρους ἐπὶ τοὺς ἵππους τούς τε ζυγίους καὶ τοὺς σειραφόρους ἀνετίθετο· εἰ δὲ πλείους ἦσαν, ἐπὶ κελήτων τῷ πομπεῖ παριππεύοντες συνεπόμπευον (‘And he would not be alone in the chariot, but if he had children or relatives, he would make the girls and the infant male children get up beside him in it and place the older ones on the horses, both the yoked-pair and the trace-horses. If there were many of them, they would accompany the procession on chargers, riding alongside.’) [All translations of ancient sources are my own.]

For a fuller description of the procedure for a Roman triumph, see App. Pun. 66 (on the triumph of Scipio Africanus) and Dio, loc. cit. See also now T. Itgenshorst, Tota Illa Pompa: Der Triumph in der römischen Republik (Göttingen 2005) and Mary Beard, The Roman Triumph (Harvard 2007) 224.

⁴ Crawford, Michael H., Roman Republican Coinage (henceforth RRC) (Cambridge 1974)Google Scholar 1.328 (cf. 83). Grueber, H.A., Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum (London 1910, repr. 1970) 1 Google Scholar. 131, 2.465, also thinks the coin of Fundanius depicts Marius’ son on the reverse, but he dates the triumph to c. 89. Beard, Triumph (n. 3) 90 with n. on 354, says that the date of the coin is disputed, but does not give any references for the dispute. On the age of Marius’ son at the time, see below, pp. 117-8.

⁵ The triumph is described in detail by Peter Greenhalgh, Pompey: The Roman Alexander (London 1980) 168-76; Beard, Triumph (n. 3) devotes the whole of her first chapter to describing it.

⁶ The coin is extremely rare: I was told by Assoc. Prof. Welch that only three examples exist – one in the British Museum, one in Bologna and one in a private collection; cf. Welch and Mitchell, ‘The Roman Alexander’ (n. 1) 83 n. 14. Grueber (n. 4) 464, and Sydenham, Edward A., The Coinage of the Roman Republic, rev. G.C. Haines, ed. L. Forrer and C.A. Hersh (London 1952, repr. New York 1976) 171 Google Scholar, seem to be aware (understandably) only of the British Museum and Bologna examples. The definitive work on aurei is now E. Xavier Calicó, The Roman Aurei (Barcelona 2002 [Spanish version], 2003 [English version with updates]); Vol. 1 covers the republican period, and the Pompeian aureus is no. 35 (p. 13). Calicó indicates that there are at least four examples: the British Museum and Bologna Museum examples, one owned and published by Gennaro Riccio (Catalogo di antiche medaglie consolari e di famiglie romane [Napoli 1855]), and the one in private hands. Cf. notes by Rick Witschonke on his own private example for sale in Numismatica Ars Classica, Auction 63 (17 May 2012), Lot 220, previously offered for sale in 1999 (Triton Sale III, Lot 817) but failing to meet the reserve. Witschonke doubted if the coin was issued to celebrate Pompeius’ third triumph in 61, and says that his specimen is reported to have been found in Spain. I have been unable to secure an image of the example published by Riccio; I am grateful to Emer. Prof. R.T. Ridley for checking the bibliographical reference of Riccio in the Vatican Library on a recent visit.

⁷ I am grateful to one of the journal’s anonymous readers for this point. Examples of those suggesting the coins were minted in the East: Grueber (n. 4) 464-6; Crawford, RRC 386-7; Calicó, Roman Aurei (n. 6) 13.

⁸ On the date of Pompeius’ first triumph, see Badian, E., ‘The Date of Pompey’s First Triumph’, Hermes 83 (1955) 107-118 Google Scholar. Cf. Robin Seager, Pompey the Great: A Political Biography, 2nd edn (Malden MA, Oxford, Melbourne and Berlin 2002) 29.

⁹ Sall. Hist. 2.21M; Plut. Pomp. 14.1-3; cf. Cic. leg. Man. 61. After Sulla initially denied Pompeius a triumph, because it was said that he had not achieved his victory as a magistrate and that he was still technically an eques, Sulla eventually conceded. There is a connection with elephants in this triumph: see below, notes 44 and 45.

¹⁰ Crawford, RRC 1.413.

¹¹ The other identification is clear, and it was issued later: the female head on the obverse of a coin of Q. Caecilius Metellus Scipio Nasica (RRC 461/1), issued when he was commanding the opposition to Caesar in Africa in 47-6, has to be in that context a personification of Africa. The female is depicted wearing an elephant-head skull-cap, but the elephant was a regular symbol (almost a badge, one might say) of the Metellan family: cf. RRC 262/1, 263/1a and 1b, and see also Crawford, RRC 2.738.

¹² Grueber (n. 4) 464-6 has a lengthy note discussing the coin; he thinks it was minted in the East and is of ‘coarse workmanship’, but the latter view need not concern us here.

¹³ Sydenham (n. 6) 171.

¹⁴ Mattingly, Harold, ‘Notes on Late Republican Coinage’, Numismatic Chronicle (1963) 53-54 Google Scholar. He puts forward an additional theory, however, that the coin might have been issued later during the civil war between Pompeius and Julius Caesar, because of the unusual use of the single name Magnus. Another to take the image to be a personification of Africa is Michele Coltelloni-Trannoy, ‘Les représentations de l’Africa dans les monnayages Africains et Romains à l’époque républicaine’, Actes du VIIe colloque international réunis dans le cadre du 121e congrès des Sociétés historiques et scientifiques (Nice 1996) 72.

¹⁵ Michel, Dorothea, Alexander als Vorbild für Pompeius, Caesar und Marcus Antonius (Brussels 1967) 39 Google Scholar, claims there is an earring above a lock of hair, indicative of female gender. Jessie Maritz, ‘The Face of Alexandria – The Face of Africa’, in Anthony Hirst and Michael Silk (eds), Alexandria, Real and Imagined (Aldershot UK 2004) 49 with n. 48, sees a difference between the British Museum specimen and the Bologna one, and concludes that the gender is not clearly identifiable. I am grateful to Assoc. Prof. Tom Hillard for drawing my attention to Maritz’s article and providing me with a photocopy of it.

¹⁶ RRC 509/3 and 4 (not specifically discussed by Crawford); it was issued later by Q. Cornuficius when he was proconsul of Africa fighting on the side of Sex. Pompeius against the Triumvirs. The coin is unique, found now only in Zagreb according to Crawford; it is not listed in Calicó, The Roman Aurei (n. 6), and may therefore be of dubious authenticity.

¹⁷ Professor Stewart (in a private communication) thinks that the round object with the item below it does look quite like a drop ear-ring, and there are the ‘Venus rings’ on the neck and the hair over the forehead and temples combed back to the sides, presumably from a central parting; all of this adds to the view that the figure is female.

¹⁸ Maritz (n. 15) 41-66, esp. 48-50.

¹⁹ Maritz (n. 15) 49 asserts that the legend MAGNUS on the obverse is clearly a link to Alexander which Pompeius wished to make. Cf. Michel (n. 10) 35-41.

²⁰ Stewart, Andrew F., Faces of Power: Alexander’s Image and Hellenistic Politics (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1993) 233-235 Google Scholar; cf. particularly his discussion on 233-4 n. 14 of other views, with bibliography.

²¹ Ostenberg, Ida, Staging the World: Spoils, Captives, and Representations in the Roman Triumphal Procession (Oxford 2009) 275 Google Scholar, makes a further suggestion about the use of the elephant: it was not only as a symbol of power, but also, while elephants might initially have been shown as ferocious opponents captured in war, when led in parades and in displays they were presented as nature’s wild beasts now tamed and capable of being allowed into the very city itself.

²² For a suggested earlier date, see e.g. Crawford, RRC 1.413 with n. 1; for a later date, see e.g. Grueber (n. 4) 465, Sydenham (n. 6) 171, and cf. MRR 2, under 59 and 50.

²³ References in MRR 2.192.

²⁴ This followed the death of Pompeius’ second wife Aemilia about 82. That marriage too had been arranged by Sulla and Metella, Aemilia being the latter’s daughter by her first marriage to the elder M. Aemilius Scaurus (cos. 115). Aemilia died in childbirth having her former husband’s child, so her marriage to Pompeius was short: for the details, see e.g. Seager (n. 8) 26-7; Haley, Shelley P., ‘The Five Wives of Pompey the Great’, G&R 32.1 (1985) 50 Google Scholar. Both these marriage arrangements brought Pompeius useful political connections to relatives of the Metellan family: Syme, RR 31-2; Gruen, ‘Pompey, the Roman Aristocracy, and the Conference of Luca’, Historia 18.1 (1969) 75; Greenhalgh (n. 5) 29; Marshall, B.A., ‘Marriage Alliances and Politics in the Last Decades of the Late Roman Republic’, Ancient Society: Resources for Teachers 39.1 (2009) 107-108 Google Scholar, with stemmata 4 (a), (b) and (c). W. Jeffrey Tatum, The Patrician Tribune: Publius Clodius Pulcher (Chapel Hill and London 1999) 63 with n. 13 and 69-70, discusses how the Metellan connections broke down after Pompeius’ divorce of Mucia on his return from the East in late 62.

²⁵ So e.g. G.E.F. Chilver and E. Badian, OCD ³ 1216.

²⁶ I.e. putting his conception during the second period when Pompeius was back in Rome. So now Kathryn Welch, Magnus Pius: Sextus Pompeius and the Transformation of the Roman Republic (Wales 2012) 15.

²⁷ Flor. 1.49.9: Gellius Tusco mari inpositus, . . . Pomponius Gallicum [sinum] obsedit, . . . Pompei iuvenes Hadriaticum [mare], . . . (‘Gellius was put in charge of the Tuscan Sea, . . . Pomponius blockaded the Gallic [Gulf], . . . Pompeius’ young sons [had command of] the Adriatic [Sea], . . .’). The text of Florus is corrupt here; Broughton MRR 2.149 follows the Loeb editor’s text in assigning the iuvenes Pompei to command of the Adriatic. The area of command does not matter for the argument here, because it is about the age of the sons at the time.

²⁸ Pointed out e.g. by Broughton, MRR 2.149.

²⁹ Above, n. 4.

³⁰ Green (n. 2) 5; Greenhalgh (n. 5) 16 puts him in his ‘late twenties’. Thérèse Ridley, in the extra material in her translation of Friedrich Münzer, Römisches Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart 1920), trans. as Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families (Baltimore and London 1999) 441-2 n. 63, discusses the question at length; see also pp. 256-7 for discussion of the younger Marius’ marriage as evidence for his birth date.

³¹ Carbo possibly wanted to use the attraction of the young man’s name to bolster the anti-Sullan cause and secure recruits: see e.g. Arthur Keaveney, Sulla: The Last Republican (London and Canberra 1982) 135. One might point to a comparison with the young Caesar, who forcibly secured the consulship in 44 at the age of 19, but that was nearly 40 years later when violence had escalated even further.

³² The triumph was celebrated over two days, 28th and 29th September: Acta Triumphales, CIL ² 176. Pompeius’ birthday was 29th September, and he was born in 106.

³³ Plut. Mar. 6.2 places the marriage after Marius’ return from his praetorian command in 114 in Spain; cf. Broughton, MRR 1.534, with n. 3 on 535.

³⁴ Liv. 45.40.4 and 7-8: ipse postremo Paullus in curru magnam cum dignitate alia corporis tum senecta ipsa maiestatem prae se ferens. post currum inter alios illustres viros filii duo, Q. Maximus and P. Scipio. . . . nam duobus e filiis quos duobus datis in adoptionem solos nominis, sacrorum familiaeque heredes retinuerat domi, minor duodecim ferme annos natus quinque diebus ante triumphum, maior quattuordecim annorum triduo post triumphum decessit. (‘At the end came Paullus himself in his chariot, showing a majestic presence, not only because of the dignity of his bearing, but also because of his age. After the chariot, among other distinguished men, came his two sons, Quintus Maximus and Publius Scipio . . . After he had arranged the adoption of [these] two sons, he had kept only two sons at home as the heirs of his name, his family rites and his household; of these, the younger boy, aged about 12, died five days before the triumph, and the older boy, 14 years of age, died three days after the triumph.’) Plut. Aem. 35.1-2 has the ages of the younger sons the other way around. The two older sons were Q. Fabius Maximus Aemilianus (cos. 145) and P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus (cos. 147 and 134).

³⁵ On the dates of the births of Germanicus’ children, see Hugh Lindsay ‘A Fertile Marriage: Agrippina and the Chronology of her Children by Germanicus’, Latomus 54 (1995) 3-17. It is interesting that female children were allowed to take part: Flory, Marleen B., ‘The Integration of Women into the Roman Triumph’, Historia 47.4 (1998) 491-492 Google Scholar; McWilliam, Janette, ‘Family as Strategy: Image-Making and the Children of Germanicus’, Acta Patristica et Byzantina 21.2 (2010) 124-125 Google Scholar with n. 29.

³⁶ It is not clear whether he was acclaimed with this title by his own troops at the end of the African campaign and that Sulla took it up, or whether Sulla came up with the cognomen himself (Plut. Pomp. 13.4): see e.g. Gruen (n. 2) 185, and Seager (n. 8) 28 (Sulla followed troops’ acclamation); Keaveney (n. 31) 195 (Sulla’s initiative); John Leach, Pompey the Great (London 1978) 31 (troops’ initiative). Martin, Cf. Devon Joan, ‘Did Pompey engage in imitatio Alexandri?’, in C. Deroux (ed.), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 9 (1998) 27 Google Scholar. The name came to be particularly used after his Eastern campaigns (J.P.V.D. Balsdon, Historia [1950] 298-9).

³⁷ Martin (n. 36) 23-51, at 29-36.

³⁸ Cic. Arch. 24: note the clear contrast between ille Alexander and noster hic Magnus.

³⁹ R.R.R. Smith, Hellenistic Royal Portraits (Oxford and New York 1988) 136, points out that it is not a full anastolê, but ‘a small quiff of hair over the forehead . . . at most an allusion to Alexander’s anastolē’. The style is not much different to the types of Alexander on the coinage of Ptolemy I, as seen in Figs 9 and 12. It would be consistent with the Roman character of Pompeius (see below, p. 128) that his hairstyle was not depicted as too extravagant, and with the ‘verism’ of Roman portraiture in this period (see below, n. 52).

⁴⁰ App. Mith. 117: αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ Πομπήιος ἐπὶ ἅρματος ἦν, καὶ τοῦδε λιθοκολλήτου, χλαμύδα ἔχων, ὥς φασιν, Ἀλεχάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος, εἴ τῳ πίστον ἐστιν· ἔοικε δ’ αὐτὴν εὑρεῖν ἐν Μιθριδάτου, Κῴων παρὰ Κλεοπάτρας λαβόντων. (‘Pompeius himself was in a chariot, which was also studded with gems, wearing a cloak, it is said, belonging to Alexander the Macedonian, if anyone can believe that. It seems it was found among the possessions of Mithridates, which the people of Kos had received from Kleopatra.’)

⁴¹ Arthur Houghton and Catharine Lorber, Seleucid Coins, A Comprehensive Catalogue, Part I: Seleucus I – Antiochus III (American Numismatic Society 2002) 7, with coin nos 101, 183, 188, 189-190, 219, identify every Seleukid coin depicting this headgear as ‘an unambiguous image of Alexander as conqueror of India . . . The elephant headdress not only recalls Alexander’s exploits in Africa and India but is a clear symbol of his divinity and immortality.’ That is, they think the image on the obverse is of Alexander, not Seleukos. If that is the case, it strengthens the argument of this article that Pompeius’ coin imitates the iconography associated with Alexander. I owe this reference and point to one of the journal’s anonymous readers.

⁴² It is now rare, as there are only two specimens known, but we cannot know how limited or extensive its circulation was originally.

⁴³ Stewart (n. 20) 267-8. Cf. the following discussion of types of elephants. Maritz (n. 15) 42-3 takes it to be either ‘a portrait of Alexander, or a portrait of Agathocles modelled on portraits of Alexander’. For discussion of Hellenistic influences on the coins of Agathokles, see Coltelloni-Trannoy (n. 14) 68.

⁴⁴ He went elephant and lion hunting at the end of his 40-day campaign there (Plut. Pomp. 12.5), and took back to Rome also a large number of elephants ‘captured from the kings’ (presumably meaning Iarbas, whom he defeated, and perhaps Hiempsal, whom he restored to the throne of Numidia) (ibid. 14.4).

⁴⁵ Plut. Pomp. 14.4; the embarrassing miscalculation is accepted e.g. by H.H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (London 1974) 193-4; Greenhalgh (n. 5) 28; Gruen (n. 2) 186; Seager (n. 8) 28-9. Leach (n. 36) 32 questions the incident, saying that ‘a planner of Pompeius’ calibre would . . . have foreseen this difficulty’, and suggests another explanation: Pompeius wanted to use the elephant-drawn chariot traditionally associated with Venus Victrix (Sulla’s especial deity) and with Dionysos, and Sulla was unhappy with the arrangement, and so Pompeius did not proceed inside the city as a face-saving exercise. See also Mader, Gottfried, ‘Triumphal Elephants and Political Circus at Plutarch, Pomp. 14.6’, CW 99.4 (2006) 397-403 Google Scholar, who sees Pompeius’ use of elephants not only as a theatrical attempt to assert his credentials against the opposition to the grant of a triumph by Sulla, but also as a programmatic emphasis on his imitatio Alexandri.

⁴⁶ As Leach suggests (see preceding note). The prominence of elephants on coins struck by Seleukos after c. 305 reflected his acquisition of a very large number of them following his defeat of Chandragupta in India (Christopher Howgego, Ancient History from Coins [London and New York 1995] 66)

⁴⁷ For the sources for Pompeius’ construction of this theatre-temple, see Marshall, , ‘The Date of Delivery of Cicero’s In Pisonem ’, CQ 25.1 (1975) 88-90 Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ On the length of the games: Cic. fam. 7.1.3; Dio 39.38.2. On the crowd’s sympathy for the elephants: Plin. HN 8.7; Sen. Brev. Vit. 13.6. Cf. Scullard (n. 45) 250-1 with n. 164.

⁴⁹ Scullard (n. 45) 23-4 and 60-3. His summary is followed e.g. by Michael B. Charles and Peter Rhodan, ‘“Magister Elephantorum”: A Reappraisal of Hannibal’s Use of Elephants’, CW 100.4 (Summer 2007) 364-8; Nic Fields, Roman Conquests: North Africa (Barnsley 2010) 23.

⁵⁰ The evidence for size: at the battle of Raphia near Gaza in 217, according to Polybius (5.84.2-7), Ptolemy’s African elephants shirked the battle because they were terrified by the greater size and strength of Antiochus’ Indian elephants. Cf. Scullard (n. 45) 60; Fields (n. 49) 23. Cf. also the battle of Magnesia in 189 against Antiochus where Livy comments that L. Cornelius Scipio Asiagenes placed his African elephants in the rear of the battle-line because they were fewer in number and of a smaller size than Antiochus’ Indian elephants and lacked the fighting spirit of the larger enemy elephants (37.39.13; cf. App. Syr. 31).

⁵¹ Green (n. 2) 5.

⁵² Gruen (n. 2) esp. 183-6. Gruen’s views are expanded by his pupil, Devon Martin (n. 36).

⁵³ Howgego (n. 46) 68, among others, makes this point. In addition, the image of Pompeius in the Copenhagen head and in later coin images shows Roman ‘verism’ (note the bulging cheeks, snub nose and ‘piggy’ eyes, with the hairstyle not overblown, and none of the idealism of Alexander portraits): Smith (n. 37) 136. Cf. above pp. 119-20.

⁵⁴ For some examples, see RRC 470/1a and c, 483/2, 511/3a.

⁵⁵ Welch and Mitchell (n. 1) 82.

⁵⁶ As Welch and Mitchell (n. 1) 84 n. 15 point out, Martin (n. 32) 29 accepts Crawford’s date of 71 for the coin and takes the obverse of the aureus to show a personification of Africa without considering the possibility of Alexander associations. Maritz (n. 10) 52 n. 52 makes the same criticism.

⁵⁷ Vell. Pat. 1.11.3-4; Plin. HN 7.145, 34.65. Cf. Gruen (n. 2) 181; Rawson, B., Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (Oxford 2003) 289-290 Google Scholar, discusses the statue’s role in promoting patriotism.

⁵⁸ Stat. Silv. 1.1.84-87; cf. Gruen (n. 2) 187-8.

⁵⁹ Martin (n. 36) 48; Diana Spencer, The Roman Alexander: Reading a Cultural Myth (Exeter 2002) 169, basing her claim on an analysis of Scipio’s fictional conversation with Hannibal (Liv. 35.14.11) and Lucullus’ conversation with Mithridates (Cic. Acad. 2.2).

⁶⁰ After a long engagement apparently: Faustus was engaged to Pompeia in at least late 60, and still engaged in 54 when Pompeius’ wife Julia (Caesar’s daughter) died in childbirth and when Caesar proposed a new set of marriage arrangements, including his own marriage to Pompeius’ daughter (though she was still engaged to Faustus Sulla: Suet. Iul. 27.1). See Marshall, , ‘The Engagement of Faustus Sulla and Pompeia’, Ancient Society 18 (1987) 92-101 Google Scholar.

⁶¹ RRC 426/3, 4a and 4b; see also Crawford, RRC 1.449-50 for references and discussion. For further analysis of these coins, see Michael Harlan, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins 63 BC–49 BC (London 1995) 107-9; Howgego (n. 46) 68; Welch and Mitchell (n. 1) 84-5. The head of Venus on the obverse need not have reference just to the especial connection of Faustus Sulla’s father to that goddess; Venus was a favourite goddess of a number of Roman military commanders (e.g. Pompeius’ temple-theatre to Venus Victrix: above n. 47).

⁶² For other deities and heroes favoured by Alexander, see Stewart (n. 20) 78-80.

⁶³ For discussion and references, see Marshall, , ‘Pompeius’ Temple of Hercules’, Antichthon 8 (1974) 80-84 Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ See e.g. Gruen (n. 2) 183-4, citing Plin. HN 8.4; cf. Scullard (n. 44) 193, who suggests that Pompeius might be following the example of Alexander.

⁶⁵ Smith (n. 39) 37-8 points out that the headband (or diadem), regularly worn by Alexander, has two connotations: one, it represents kingship in Asia in the style of Alexander (and so was adopted by the Successors to legitimise their rule), and two, it is associated with Dionysos and victory. ‘Dionysos was the royal god par excellence, . . . Among other things, he was a conquering god and provided the divine model for the conquest of India and Asia’ (ibid. 38). Note that on the image of Ptolemy it is worn below the hairline; later instances show it worn higher.

⁶⁶ Martin (n. 36) 36 n. 76, citing (among others) OGIS 370 and App. Mith. 10 and 16; cf. 40 n. 93. See also further references in Green (n. 2) 5 with n. 49. Note that in her section denying the views of others that Pompeius favoured the same deities and heroes as Alexander (pp. 48-9) Martin gives no coverage of Dionysos.

⁶⁷ Stewart (n. 20) 233-5; cf. above n. 20. Smith (n. 39) 41 thinks that the elephant-head skull-cap has overlapping references to both Dionysos and Alexander in India and to eastern conquests in general.

⁶⁸ Questioned by Martin (n. 36) 48-9. Nothing further is known about the shrine: jr, L. Richardson, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London 1992) 255 Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ For example, Sulla promoted an especial relationship with Venus (in the East he was known as Ἐπαφρόδιτος), and an aureus and similar denarius issued by him in 84-3 (RRC 359/1 and 2) has a head of Venus on the obverse. Caesar, of course, extensively promoted his connection to Venus as genetrix of the Julian family, having a temple to her in that name built near the Forum and dedicated on 26th September 46, while adherents of his issued numerous coins with images of her on both obverse and reverse (e.g. RRC 480/1, 3-5a and 7a-18).

⁷⁰ My attention was first drawn to this point by Kathryn Welch and Hannah Mitchell, in their paper at a conference in honour of Erich Gruen at the Australian National University in Canberra in September 2011.