Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T05:04:10.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moneta and the Monuments: Coinage and Politics in Republican Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2012

Andrew Meadows  and
Jonathan Williams
Andrew Meadows*
Affiliation:
Department of Coins and Medals, The British Museum
Jonathan Williams
Affiliation:
Department of Coins and Medals, The British Museum
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The mint of Republican Rome was located on the Capitol somewhere in the vicinity of the temple of Juno Moneta. This is one of the best known but perhaps worst attested pieces of topographical information concerning the Republican city of Rome. The evidence that the coins of the Roman Republic were made there is exiguous to say the least. Indeed, there are only two literary sources that explicitly site the mint at Juno Moneta's temple. The first is Livy's account of the condemnation and execution of M. Manlius Capitolinus, the hero who had previously saved the Capitol from assault by the Gauls. Livy mentions that the people passed a law to the effect that no patrician would thereafter be permitted to live on the Capitol or the Arx, for Manlius' house had stood on the site where, Livy says, now stands the aedes atque officina Monetae, the temple and the workshop of Moneta. The second is contained in the Suda (s.v. Μονήτα), in a passage to be discussed below. These are the sole threads of evidence on which the location of the mint of Republican Rome hangs. Nevertheless, despite an attempt to impugn Livy's reputation for topographical accuracy, they should suffice.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 91 , November 2001 , pp. 27 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Andrew Meadows and Jonathan Williams2001. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Versions of this paper were delivered to audiences at the Royal Numismatic Society in London, The Queen's University, Belfast, and the University of Oxford, and it has benefited greatly from their contributions; as it has from those of Andrew Burnett, Michael Crawford, Christopher Howgego, Laura Dance, the Editorial Committee and anonymous readers of this journal. In the production of the plate we were assisted by J. Larkin and S. Dodd. To all we are grateful. Bibliographical abbreviations used hereafter are as follows:

ANRW = W. Haase and H. Temporini (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung

BMCRE = H. Mattingly et al. (ed.), British Museum Catalogue of Coins of the Roman Empire (1923—)

LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (1981–99)

LTUR = E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (1993–2000)

MRR = T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic (1951–2)

RCS = E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society (1991)

RRC = M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage (1974)

2 Livy 6.20.13.

3 See Maclsaac, J. D., The Location of the Republican Mint of Rome and the Topography of the Arx of the Capitoline, unpub. dissertation Johns Hopkins University (1987)Google Scholar.

4 Coarelli, F., ‘Moneta. Le officine della zecca di Roma tra Repubblica e Impero’, AIIN 38–41 (1994), 23–65;Google ScholarGiannelli, G., ‘II tempio di Giunone Moneta e la casa di Marco Manlio Capitolino’, BCAR 87 (1980–1981), 7–36Google Scholar.

5 For a reconsideration of the identity and function of the ‘Tabularium’, see Purcell, N., ‘Atrium Libertatis’, PBSR 61 (1993), 125–55,Google Scholar and below, pp. 34–5. See also Sommella, A. Mura in LTUR V, 17–20Google Scholar.

6 Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 4), 30–47. This interpretation also involves the identification of a building adjoining the south-west end of the side of the ‘Tabularium’ facing the Forum underneath the later Portico of the Di Consentes with the Republican treasury, this having outgrown the restricted confines of the temple of Saturn. For the origins of this attractive notion, see Delbrück, R., Hellenistische Bauten in Latium I (1907), 23–46Google Scholar on the ‘Tabularium’, and esp. 31 and 46 on the ‘Südwestbau’, the construction of which apparently preceded that of the ‘Tabularium’, and its possible connections, physical and functional, with the mint and the treasury. See also Purcell, op. cit. (n. 5), 147, who sees in the fortress-like construction of the ‘Tabularium’ a connection with the secure and secret movement of valuables, especially coin. On the new location of the imperial mint, thought to lie beneath the church of St Clemente, see Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 4), 47–65, with idem in LTUR III, 280–1.

7 Such, for instance, was the opinion of De Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani IV.2.1 (1953), 141–2:Google Scholar ‘… il collegamento della zecca col tempio di Moneta è puramente casuale e dovuto alla particolare sicurezza che offriva la posizione sulla rocca’. See also A. M. Burnett, ‘The invisibility of Roman mints’, in L. Travaini (ed.), I Luoghi delle Zecche (forthcoming), who argues that mints in the Roman world were not generally located in very significant or monumental public buildings.

8 It may not be without significance that the only other recorded cult of Juno Moneta appears to have had its home on the Capitolium of the Roman colony of Signia, where a bronze plaque has been discovered marking a dedication to the goddess: ‘Iunonei ∣ Monetai ∣ donom’ (ILLRP 166). The inscription was first published by A. Della Seta, Catalogo del museo di Villa Giulia (1918), 221. See most recently F. Coarelli in Roma Medio Repubblicana. Aspetti culturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e III A.C. (1973), 337–8 (to whose bibliography may be added Lake, A. K., ‘Juno Moneta’, ProcPhilAss 64 (1933), xlix–l)Google Scholar.

9 Two festivals in her honour are known: one on 1 June for the dedication of the temple on the Arx (Ovid, Fast. 6.183; Macrob. 1.12.30; Lyd., De mens. 4.89; Fasti Venusini, Inscr. It. 13.2.58; Fasti Antiates Maiores, lnscr. It 13.2.12); and another on 10 October (Fasti Sabini, Inscr. It. 13.2.53; Fasti Antiates Maiores, Inscr. It. 13.2.20). For discussion see Ziolowski, A., ‘Between geese and the Auguraculum: the origin of the cult of Juno on the Arx’, CPh 88 (1993), 206–19,Google Scholar at 211–13, who suggests that the two festivals may indicate two separate temples. Could this second temple have been that vowed in 173 B.C. by C. Cicereius on the Mons Albanus (Livy 42.7.1, cf. 45.15.10)?

10 For text and translation, see now B. Campbell, The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (2000), 90.2–9, where the length of the pes monetalis (the technical term for the Roman foot) is compared to that of the ‘Ptolemaic’ foot and the ‘Drusian’, together with the size of the different iugera they produce: ‘eorum mensura …, monetali autem mensura …’. On the nature and size of the pes monetalis see Jones, R. P. Duncan, ‘Length-units in Roman town planning: the pes monetalis and the pes drusianus’, Britannia 11 (1980), 127–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 ILS 8627 (‘mensurae ad exemplum earum quae in Capitolio sunt’); ILS 8628 (‘mensurae exactae in Capitolio’). Cf. ILS 8632 (‘i[sic] Capitolio esaminata’). A handful of other inscriptions of this sort dated to the first century A.D. refer to an ‘Articuleian’ standard (e.g. ILS 8630–1, 8633–5), perhaps named after an Articuleius in whose name a law or decree had been passed regulating weights and measures.

12 ILS 8629 (‘exacta in Capit’).

13 Ps. Priscian, Carmen de ponderibus, 11. 61–2: ‘amphora fit cubus hie, quam ne violare liceret,/ sacravere Iovi Tarpeio in monte Quirites’. For the text see Hultsch, F. (ed.), Metrologicorum Scriptorum Reliquiae ii (1864), 88–98Google Scholar. Cf. SHA Maximin. 4.1, where Maximinus is said often to have drunk a Capitoline amphora of wine (vini Capitolinam amphoram) a day.

14 On archival practice in the Roman Republic, see Culham, P., ‘Archives and alternatives in Republican Rome’, CPh 84 (1989), 100–15Google Scholar.

15 So, for example, the temple of Ops, also located on the Capitol,: ILS 8637a: ‘II templ Opis Aug’ (‘two [pounds], temple of Augustan Ops’); 8637b: ‘V templ Opis Aug’ (‘five [pounds], temple of Augustan Ops’).

16 For the association between coinage, weights, and measures in the Greek context, cf., e.g., the reforms attributed to Pheidon of Argos which included the introduction of silver coinage in Aegina and the establishment of public weights and measures (Parian Marble: IG XII.5.444, 45–7, Str. 8.3.33, with Hdt. 6.127); the Athenian ‘Standards Decree’ (IG I3 1453 and Meiggs, R. and Lewis, D. M. (eds), A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (rev. edn, 1988), no. 45)Google Scholar; and Polybius' comments on the use of common laws, coins, weights and measures, as well as political institutions, as a reflection of the degree of political unity subsisting between the cities of the Achaean League (Pol. 2.37.10). Cf. also the centrality of the Tower of London to minting and the maintenance of standards in medieval and later England, though the standards themselves were kept and overseen by the Exchequer: see Connor, R. D., The Weights and Measures of England (1987)Google Scholar. As London's most secure fortified location the Tower, like the Capitol, was also used as a repository for records and documents, as well as being for many centuries the location of the Royal Menagerie and Armoury.

17 Livy 4.20.8: ‘qui si ea in re sit error quod tam ueteres annales quodque magistratuum libri, quos linteos in aede repositos Monetae Macer Licinius citat identidem auctores.’ See further Frier, B. W., Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum: The Origins of the Annalistic Tradition, Papers and Monographs of the Amercan Academy in Rome 27 (2nd edn, 1999), 155–9Google Scholar.

18 Livy 4.7.3–12 (444 B.C.), 4.13.7 (440–439 B.C.), 4.23.1–3 (435 B.C.), 4.20.8 (428 B.C.) with Frier, loc. cit(n. 17).

19 Dion. Hal. 11.62.3 apparently refers to them as ίερῶν τε καὶ ἀποθέτων βίβλων, presumably a translation of libri sacri et reconditi. For a survey of other linen books and the possibility that those in the Moneta temple represented pontifical records of some form see S. Walt, Der Historiker C. Licinius Macer. Einleitung, Fragmente, Kommentar (1997), 83–5. Linderski, J., ‘The Libri Reconditi’, HSCP 89 (1995), 207–34,Google Scholar at 213–14, has recently argued that the combined facts of Moneta's association with advice and warning, together with the proximity of her temple to the auguraculum, may suggest that the Moneta temple was home to the records and sacred literature of the Augurs.

20 A list of archaic documents cited by later Republican authors is provided by C. Ampolo, ‘La storiografia su Roma arcaica e i documenti’, in E. Gabba (ed.), Tria Corda. Scritti in onore di Arnaldo Momigliano (1983), 9–26, at 15–16. On the need to accept these as genuine see T. J. Cornell, ‘The tyranny of the evidence: a discussion of the possible uses of literacy in Etruria and Latium in the archaic age’, in Beard, M. et al. , Literacy in the Roman World, JRA Suppl. 3 (1991), 7–33Google Scholar. at 28–9.

21 For all of these instances and sources see Culham, op. cit. (n. 14), 110–12.

22 Livy 7.28 (344/3 B.C.). On the various traditions concerning this see below.

23 For the chronology of the earliest Roman coins see Burnett, A. M., ‘The coinages of Rome and Magna Graecia in the late 4th and 3rd centuries BC’ SNR 56 (1977), 92–121;Google Scholar‘The first Roman silver coins’, NAC 7 (1978), 121–42;Google ScholarCoinage in the Roman World (1987), ch. 1.

24 For the circumstances of the promulgation of the twelve tables see now M. H. Crawford et al. (eds), Roman Statutes (1996) II, 556–7. For penalties in bronze, see Tabula I, 14–16; uncoined bronze in the censorial aestimatio: Festus 322. 7 L (‘in aestimatione censoria aes infectum rudus appellatur’). On the use of bronze in the census see further below, p. 35.

25 Few who have written in general on the subject of the Republican coinage have been able to avoid some discussion of Moneta. Among studies devoted specifically to the goddess one must note: Assmann, E., ‘Moneta’, Klio 6 (1906), 477–88;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHands, M., ‘Juno Moneta’, NC 4 10 (1910), 1–12;Google ScholarBabelon, E., ‘Moneta’, MémAcInscr 39 (1913), 241–92Google Scholar (reviewed by Kubitschek, W., NZ 6 (1913), 233–6)Google Scholar; Shields, E. L., Juno. A Study in Early Roman Religion, Smith College Classical Studies 7 (1926), 59–62;Google Scholar Lake, op. cit. (n. 8). For other accounts of the goddess see e.g. G. Radke, Die Götter Altitaliens (1965), 221–3; Marbach, E., s.v. Moneta, in RE XVI.I (1933), 113–19;Google Scholar R. E. A. Palmer, Roman Religion and Roman Empire (1974), 29ff., 98f.

26 Livy 7.28.4–6: ‘dictator tamen, quia et ultro bellum intulerant et sine detractatione se certamini offerebant, deorum quoque opes adhibendas ratus inter ipsam dimicationem aedem Iunoni Monetae uouit; cuius damnatus uoti cum uictor Romam reuertisset, dictatura se abdicauit. senatus duumuiros ad eam aedem pro amplitudine populi Romani faciendam creari iussit; locus in arce destinatus, quae area aedium M. Manli Capitolini fuerat … anno postquam uota erat aedes Monetae dedicatur C. Marcio Rutulo tertium T. Manlio Torquato iterum consulibus.’ S. P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X. Vol. II (1998) ad loc. notes that this dedication on the field of battle is the first of a series that appear in Livy over the period c. 350–265 B.C.

27 Val. Max. 1.8.3: ‘Nec Minus voluntarius in urbem nostram Iunonis transitus. captis a Furio Camillo Veiis milites iussu imperatoris simulacrum Iunonis Monetae, quod ibi praecipua religione cultum erat, in urbem translaturi sede sua movere conabantur. quorum ab uno per iocum interrogata dea an Romam migrare vellet, velle se respondit.’

28 Ovid, Fasti 6.183–6: ‘Arce quoque in summa Iunoni templa Monetae / ex voto memorant facta, Camille, tuo. / ante domus Manli fuerat, qui Gallica quondam / a Capitolino reppulit arma Iove.’

29 cf. Cicero, De Div. 1.101 (‘Atque etiam scriptum a multis est, cum terrae motus factus esset, ut sue plena procuratio fieret, vocem ab aede Iunonis ex arce extitisse; quocirca Iunonem illam appellatam Monetam’) and 2.69 (‘Quod idem dici de Moneta potest; a qua praeterquam de sue plena quid umquara moniti sumus?’).

30 Schol. ad Lucan 1. 380: ‘Moneta Iuno dicta est. cum enim Senones a Capitolio removisset, Moneta dicta est, quod monuisset ut Capitolium tuerentur.’ Remarkably, no ancient source connects Juno Moneta with the geese of Juno who appear in versions of the sack of Rome. See Horsfall, N. J., ‘From history to legend: M. Manlius and the geese’, CJ 76 (1980–1981), 298–311,Google Scholar at 308–9. For discussion of the whole complex of the Gauls, geese, and Manlius myth, see Wiseman, T. P., ‘Topography and rhetoric: the trial of Manlius’, Historia 28 (1979), 32–50Google Scholar. Cf. Giannelli, op. cit. (n. 4) and Ziolowski, op. cit. (n. 9).

31 Manlius: Livy 6.20.13, 7.28.6; Plut., Cam. 36.9; Diod. Sic. 13.35.3; De Vir. Ill. 24.6; Ovid, Fast. 6.185. Tatius: Plut., Rom. 20.5; Solin. 1.21. The two traditions need not be mutually exclusive.

32 For the identification of these remains and their association with sixth/fifth-century terracottas also found in the garden see Giannelli, G., ‘La leggenda dei “mirabilia” e l'antica topografia dell'arce capitolina’, StRom 26 (1978), 60–71,Google Scholar at 64–6. Cf. Giannelli, op. cit. (n. 4) and LTUR III. 123–5; F. Coarelli, Il Foro Romano I. Periodo Arcaico (1983), 104. For caution as to the sacred nature of the archaic structure and discussion of the apparently contradictory archaeological and literary evidence see Ziolowski, op. cit. (n. 9), 207–11.

33 CIL 6.362 = ILS 3108: ‘Iunoni Monetae Regin.∣ sacrum ∣ [L.] Antonius L.I. Euthetus ∣ et Antonia Dionysia ∣ vot. sol.’

34 It is tempting to suggest that this tradition may in some sense be linked to the persistent, though erroneous, ancient belief that the Romans first began to use silver coinage after the Pyrrhic War: Pliny, NH 33.42–4; Livy, Epit. 15; Syncellus p. 523 Bonn; Jerome, Chron. p. 130 Helm; Chronicon Paschale 173 Migne; Zonaras 8.7.

35 Odyssea F. 23 Morel: ‘Nam divina Monetas filia docuit’, translating Odyssey 8.480–1 (οὕνεκ' ἄρα σφέας ∣ οἴμας Μοῦσ' ἐδίδαξε) or 488 (ἢ σέ γε Μοῦσ' ἐδίδαξε, Διὸς πάϊς, ἢ σέ γ' Ἀπόλλων). It is possible that this translation of the goddess’ name first occurred in Andronicus (so e.g. Palmer, op. cit.(n. 25), 98–9), but by no means certain.

36 This identity clearly postdates the introduction of the mint to the temple of Juno Moneta. The earliest representation of the goddess appears on a denarius of L. Plaetorius in 74 B.C., and then again on an issue of T. Carisius in 46 B.C. (RRC nos 396 and 464). In both cases the head or bust is labelled simply ‘MONETA’. Carisius' types were revived on an anonymous issue of A.D. 68–9 (BMCREI, 291 n.‡, pl. 50.1 with the reverse legend ‘SALVTARIS’), and by Trajan in A.D. 107 (BMCRE Trajan no. 688). At least as early as the reign of Domitian Moneta as the goddess of coinage and the mint had been endowed with her own iconography, bearing a striking resemblance to that of Aequitas. See Mowat, R., ‘Le bureau de l'Equité et les ateliers de la Monnaie impériale à Rome d'après les monuments numismatiques et épigraphiques’, NZ 42 (1909), 87–116Google Scholar and LIMC Suppl. s.v. Moneta.

37 In addition to Cicero's outburst in the De Div. and the scholiast to Lucan, note, for example, the explanation of Isidore, writing at a time when the word ‘moneta’ had been transferred to the mint and its product, coinage (Orig. 16.8.8): ‘moneta appellata est, quia monet, ne qua fraus in metallo vel pondere fiat.’ Cf. OLD s.v. ‘moneo’, 1: ‘to bring to the notice of, remind, tell (of)’; 2: ‘to suggest a course of action to, advise, recommend, warn, tell’.

38 See Oakley, op. cit. (n. 26), 708. For the suggestion that Moneta's temple may have been the place of deposit for the records of the augurs see above n. 19.

Note that the archived records of augural observationes were known as monumenta (Cicero, De Div. 1.72).

39 Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 4); Purcell, op. cit. (n. 5).

40 Pieri, G., L'histoire du cens jusqu'à la fin de la République Romaine, Publications de l'Institut de Droit Romain de l'Université de Paris 25 (1968), 69–75Google Scholar. Wiseman, T. P., ‘The census in the first century B.C.’, JRS 59 (1969), 59–75,Google Scholar at 59.

41 The precise origins and development of this aspect of the census remain largely obscure. While few would now take at face value the late Republican tradition as embodied by Livy's account of the Servian introduction of the census (Livy 1.42–3), it seems none the less likely that the basic wealth assessment that lay at the heart of the organization of the Roman citizenry dates fron the fifth or fourth centuries at the latest. See C. Nicolet, Le métier de citoyen dans la Rome républicaine (1976), 76; R. M. Ogilvie, A Commentary on Livy 1–5 (1965), 166–8; Pieri, op. cit. (n. 40), 47–55.

42 On the precisely monetary nature of this aestimatio see C. Nicolet, ‘Mutations monétaires et organisation censitaire sous la République’, in Les “Devaluations” à Rome. Epoque Républicaine et Impériale (Rome 13–15 novembre 1975) (1978), 249–72, at 250 n. 3 (= idem, Censeurs et publicains (2000), 147–8 n–3).

43 Many modern discussions of the monetary nature of the Servian census are vitiated by the dogmatic insistence that the bronze values there described presuppose the existence and widespread use of a bronze monetary medium. Weights of bronze in this and other early contexts are being used as convenient units of account: nothing more need be inferred.

44 Note Festus (51.1–2 L): ‘Censores dicti, quod rem suam quisque tanti aestimare solitus sit, quantum illi censuerint.’ On the mechanism of self-assessment see T. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht 3 (1887) 11.1, 394–6; Pieri, op. cit. (n. 40), 53 n. 21.

45 There is a considerable modern bibliography on this topic. See most recently Astin, A. E., ‘Regimen Morum’, JRS 78 (1988), 14–34Google Scholar. Cf. Pieri, op. cit.(n. 40), 108–13; Nicolet, op. cit. (n. 41), 103–13; idem, Tributum. Recherches sur la fiscalité directe sous la République Romaine (1976), 29–33: ‘on voit que les “classes fiscales” auxquelles aboutissait le census n'étaient pas uniquement fondées sur le capital, foncier et mobilier: elles exprimaient une “hiérarchie volontaire” et civique, soulageant les pauvres sans doute, mais taxant moins la richesse que les honneurs’ (31–2).

46 ‘Idem hic annus censurae initium fuit, rei a parva origine ortae, quae deinde tanto incremento aucta est, ut morum disciplinaeque Romanae penes eam regimen, senatui equitumque centuriis decoris dedecorisque discrimen, sub dicione eius magistratus publicorum ius priuatorumque locorum, vectigalia populi Romani sub nutu atque arbitrio essent.’ (Livy 4.8.2).

47 Astin, op. cit. (n. 45), 33–4.

48 One can only guess at the significance of the fact that the first two magistrates that we can be certain that the libri lintei mentioned also happen to be the first two censors: L. Papirius Mugillanus and L. Sempronius Atratinus. See Livy 4.7.10–12 for their mention in the libri and MRR 1, 54 for the sources on the censorship.

49 For the career of Macer as politician and historian see now Walt, op. cit. (n. 19), 1–184. For the identification of the historian with the moneyer see the commentary ad RRC no. 354 and Walt, 4–8. Caution about the identification of the politician with the historian has been expressed by Cornell, T. J. in his review of Walt, JRS 89 (1999), 229–30,Google Scholar at 229.

50 This reconstruction of the relationship between Macer and Quadrigarius was first put forward by Frier, B., ‘Licinius Macer and the consules suffecti of 444 BC’ TAPA 105 (1975), 79–97Google Scholar. at 92–3 (cf. Frier, op. cit. (n. 17), 121–7), who suggests that Quadrigarius was probably also the author of the work cited by Plutarch (Numa 1.2) by the title Ëλεγχος χρόνων (‘An attack on chronology’), in which he justified the start of his history in 390 B.C. on the basis that all previous records of the Roman state had been destroyed in the Gallic sack of that year. Cf. T. P. Wiseman, Clio's Cosmetics (1979), 19, 22–3; S. P. Oakley, A Commentary on Livy, Books VI–X. Vol. I (1997). 27–8.

51 Caution in this matter is preferred by Walt, op. cit. (n. 19), 81.

52 There has, inevitably, been a modern scholarly debate as to the authenticity of the Libri. A full history of this is provided by Walt, op. cit. (n. 19), 78–81, who inclines like most recent commentators towards acceptance. For the purposes of our argument, of course, what matters is not the falsity or authenticity of the documents, but rather the fact that Macer regarded these documents as likely to convince thanks to their stated origin being the temple of Moneta.

53 On the date of the introduction of the denarius see M. H. Crawford, Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic (1985), 55–6.

54 On this change and the date see RRC, 720–1.

55 Note C. J. Howgego, Ancient History from Coins (1995), 67: ‘It is the specific character of subsequent Roman types which needs explaining, rather than the more typical conservatism of Greek coinages.’

56 For a useful tabulation of moneyers using ancestral themes on their coins see H. I. Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (1996), 333–8.

57 Their collocation is based, however, on Crawford's interpretation of the significance of their reverse types (on the uncertain nature of which see next note). See RRC, 62 with n. 1.

58 Crawford ad RRC no. 234 favours allusion in the obverse to Ti. Veturius Philo, flamen martialis from 204 B.C.; for the reverse he suggests a reference to an early version of the story of the disaster of the Caudine Forks, now topical in the light of the foedus Numantinum of 137 B.C. This would also have had a familial significance, the Caudine disaster having occurred in the consulship of T. Veturius Calvinus. On this and other interpretations of the oath scene see Zehnacker, H., Moneta: Recherches sur l'organisation et l'art des émissions monétaires de la République romaine (1973), 310–14Google Scholar. Crawford also sees a reference to the foedus Numantinum in RRC no. 235, in the blatantly imperialistic nature of the wolf and twins which, he suggests, urges support for the repudiation of the treaty. In taking this approach Crawford is forced to read the word FOSTLVS which appears after the name SEX POM in the reverse legend as a label applied to the male figure in the design. Others had preferred to regard the whole as the moneyer's name: Sex. Pompeius Faustulus. See e.g. MRR 11, 449; E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic (1952), 54 with n. 461; Zehnacker, 463. The type thus interpreted has a deeply familial point of reference. On this whole problem see now W. E. Metcalfe, ‘Coins as primary evidence’, in G. M. Paul and M. Ierardi (eds), Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire (1999), 1–17, at 5–10.

59 For this interpretation see Crawford RRC ad loc. and Zehnacker, op. cit. (n. 58), 465–6.

60 The elephant had also appeared on the issue of yet another Metellus (RRC no. 262) a year or so previously. On the significance of these types see Crawford ad RRC nos 262, 263, and 269. On the commemoration of military activity in general on coins of this period see W. V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome (1979), 21 with n. 2.

61 On the interpretation of this type see Lintott, A. W., ‘Provocatio. From the struggle of the orders to the Principate’, ANRW 1.2, 226–67,Google Scholar at 249–53.

62 For the identification of the type of RRC no. 291 see Stuart, M., ‘The denarius of M. Aemilius Lepidus and the Aqua Marcia’, AJA 49 (1945), 226–51;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Zehnacker, op. cit. (n. 58), 530; Crawford ad RRC no. 291. For later commemoration of M. Aemilius Lepidus' equestrian statue, his position as Tutor Regis to Ptolemy V, and the Basilica Aemilia see RRC no. 419.

63 For explanations in terms of political parties or personal ambitions see e.g., MacDonald, G., Coin Types (1905), 190–1Google Scholar; Mattingly, H., ‘Some new studies of the Roman Republican coinage’, PBA 39 (1953), 239–85,Google Scholar at 281–2; idem, Roman Coins 2 (1960), 57; Sutherland, C. H. V., Roman Coins (1974), 61Google Scholar; A. Alföldi, ‘The main aspects of political propaganda on the coinage of the Roman Republic’, in R. A. G. Carson and C. H. V. Sutherland (eds), Essays in Roman Coinage presented to Harold Mattingly (1956), 63–95, a t 71–2: ‘Since the monetary representations concerning the idea of the state began to vanish in the decades of the Gracchi owing to the selfish efforts of the controlling officials to supplant the old devices by new ones, relating to the might and glory of their families, no general rules or prescriptions restrained the new trend.’

64 T. P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate (1971), 4–5, 148–9 with Appendix 6.

65 Crawford, RRC, 728.

66 For acceptance of his general proposition see e.g. Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘Image and authority in the coinage of Augustus’, JRS 76 (1986), 66–87,Google Scholar at 74; Burnett, op. cit. (n. 23, 1987), 22. More cautious is Howgego, op. cit. (n. 55), 67.

67 Hamilton, C. D., ‘The tresviri monetales and the Republican cursus honorum’, TAPA 100 (1969), 181–99,Google Scholar at 190.

68 Burnett, A. M., ‘The authority to coin in the late Republic and early Empire’, NC 137 (1977), 37–63,Google Scholar at 40–4. His conclusions have not met with complete acceptance. See e.g. Mattingly, H., ‘The management of the Roman Republican mint’, AIIN 29 (1982), 9–46,Google Scholar at 10–11; Crawford, op. cit. (n. 53), 56 n. 6.

69 Flower, op. cit. (n. 56).

70 Plb . 6.53.5–9: ἡ δ’ εἰκών ἐστι πρόσωπον εἰς ὁμοιότητα διαφερόντως ἐξειργασμένον καὶ κατὰ τὴν πλάσιν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὑπογραφήν. ταύτας δὴ τὰς εἰκόνας ἔν τε ταῖς δημοτελέσι θυσίαις ἀνοίγοντες κοσμοῦσι φιλοτίμως. ἐπάν τε τῶν οἰκείων μεταλλάξῃ τις ἐπιφανής, ἄγουσιν εἰς τὴν ἐκφοράν, περιτιθέντες ὡς ὁμοιοτάτοις εἶναι δοκοῦσι κατά τε τὸ μέγεθος καὶ την ἄλλην περικοπήν. οὗτοι δὲ προσαναλαμβάνουσιν ἐσθῆτας, ἐὰν μὲν ὕπατος ἢ στρατηγὸς ἦ γεγονώς, περιπορφύρους, ἐὰν δὲ τιμητής, πορφυρᾶς, ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τεθριαμβευκὼς ἤ τι τοιοῦτον κατειργασμένος, διαχρύσους.

71 On the relation between the imagines and nobilitas see Flower, op. cit. (n. 56), esp. 61ff. On the role of the censors see above p. 36.

72 Flower, op. cit. (n. 56), 86.

73 Livy 23.23.8. See Rawson, 1. E., ‘The antiquarian tradition: spoils and representations of foreign armour’, RCS, 582–98, at 583Google Scholar.

74 See above pp. 33–4 with n. 37.

75 Porph., ad Hor. Carm. 1.2.15: ‘monumentum non sepulchrum tantum dicitur, sed omne quicquid memoriam testatur’; cf. Dig. 11.7.2.6 (Ulpian): ‘monumentum est quod memoriae servandae gratia extistat’ (‘a monument is what exists for the purposes of preserving the memory’); Paulus ex Festo 123 L: ‘monumentum est quod et mortui causa aedificatum est et quicquid ob memoriam alicuius factum est, ut fana, porticus, scripta et carmina’ (‘a monument is both what is built for the sake of a deceased person and whatever is made for the sake of someone's memory, like shrines, porticos, writings and poems’).

76 Varro, LL 6.49: ‘meminisse a memoria … Ab eodem monere …; sic monimenta quae in sepulcris, et ideo secundum viam, quo praetereuntis admoneant et se fuisse et illos esse mortalis. Ab eo cetera quae scripta ac facta memoriae causa monimenta dicta.’

77 See OLD s.v. ‘monumentum’ 4–5.

78 See Weiss, R., The Renaissance Discovery of Classical Antiquity (1969), 167–79Google Scholar on the rise of numismatic collecting in the Renaissance; Haskell, F., History and its Images (1993)Google Scholar, esp. 13–25, 87–9, on the developing use of coins as historical evidence in the sixteenth century; Schnapp, A., The Discovery of the Past. The Origins of Archaeology (1996, English trans.), 182–5 on seventeenth-century developmentsGoogle Scholar.

79 See, e.g., Corradini, E., ‘Medallic portraits of the Este: effigies ad vivum expressae’, in N. Mann and G. L. Syson (eds), The Image of the Individual. Portraits in the Renaissance (1998), 22–39Google Scholar; and G. L. Syson, ‘Circulating a likeness? Coin portraits in late fifteenth-century Italy’, ibid., 113–25.

80 For a list of ancestor portraits on Republican coins, beginning only in the 50s B.C., see RRC, 746. See also Flower, op. cit. (n. 56), 84.

81 See RRC, 729 on the return to ‘public’ types from 124 to 115 B.C.

82 That the coin types of the Republic and early Empire were regarded as monuments in later times is strongly suggested by the so-called ‘restored types’ of the late first and early second centuries A.D., when emperors re-issued coins with ancient types. On this phenomenon see Mattingly, H. B., ‘The “restored” coins of Titus, Domitian and Nerva’, NC 4 20 (1920), 177–207,Google Scholar and ‘The restored coins of Trajan’, NC 5 6 (1926), 232–78:Google Scholar ‘There is good reason then for assuming that Trajan's restoration series was accepted as an historical monument to the Early Empire and Republic …’ (at 278). The standard legend accompanying such ‘restorations’ consisted of the restoring emperor's name plus ‘REST(ITVIT)’, indicating a close conceptual parallel with the restoration of built monuments. These restorations raise the question of the deliberate ‘curation’ of coins of types otherwise out of circulation. See now also a newly discovered ‘restoration’ of the reign of Gallienus, copying a Republican quadrigatus didrachm of the late third century B.C. which by then had been out of circulation for over 450 years. On which, see R. A. Abdy, ‘A new coin type of Gallienus found in Hertfordshire’, NC (forthcoming).

83 For the various sources on L. Minucius see RRC, 273–4; with T. P. Wiseman, ‘The Minucii and their monument’, in idem, Roman Drama and Roman History (1998), 90–105.

84 contra, e.g., RRC, 726; and T. P. Wiseman, ‘Valerius Antias and the palimpsest of history’, in Wiseman, op. cit. (n. 83), 77: ‘More and more the standard symbols of the Roman community were replaced by “private” types, referring in particular to the family of the moneyer responsible for the design.’

85 For populi Romani gesta, see Cato, Origines, fr. 1 Peter (= 1.1 in M Chassignet (ed.), Caton. Les Origines (Fragments) (1986)): ‘si ques homines sunt, quos delectat populi Romani gesta discribere …’ (‘If there are any people who take pleasure in recounting the history of the Roman people …’).

86 Among other early fourth- and third-century B.C. examples of monuments named after individuals, cf. the Columna Maenia, identified in the traditions either as a victory monument to C. Maenius of 318 B.C. or as a platform for watching the games constructed from the remains of the house of one Maenius demolished to make way for the Basilica Porcia in 184 B.C. (see M. Torelli in LTUR 1, 301–2); the Columna Rostrata C. Duilii, a monument to the naval victory of C. Duilius of 260 B.C.; the Columna Rostrata M. Aemilii Pauli of 255 B.C.; and the Atrium Maenium and Atrium Titium, both demolished to make way for the Basilica Porcia in 184 B.C. (Livy 39.44.7). On the adjectival use of the gentilicium for public and semi-public undertakings see further W. Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (1904), 510–12.

87 T. P.Wiseman, ‘Roman Republican road-building’, in idem, Roman Studies (1987), 126–56 ( = PBSR 37 (1970), 122–52)Google Scholar. Cf. also the apparently second-century appearance of towns in Italy, especially in the North, named after Roman families, usually assumed to be those of their founders, e.g. Regium Lepidum, Forum Semproni, Forum Livi, Forum Flamini, Forum Licini. On which see E. Ruoff Väänänen, Studies on the Italian Fora (1982).

88 For the controversy on the locations and history of the Basilicas Fulvia and Aemilia, see Steinby, E. M., ‘Il lato orientale del Foro Romano’, Arctos 21 (1987), 139–84;Google Scholar eadem in LTUR 1, 167–8, and H. Bauer, ibid., 173–5; T. P Wiseman. ‘Rome and the resplendent Aemilii’, in Wiseman, op. cit. (n. 83), 106–20.

89 For a conspectus of building activity in and around Rome in the second century B.C., see Coarelli, F., ‘Public building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla’, PBSR 45 (1977), 1–23,Google Scholar esp. 4–6 and 20–3. For accounts of the development of the public and private architecture of Rome in this period, see P. Gros and M. Torelli, Storia dell'urbanistica. Il mondo romano (1988), 104–16; Gros, P., ‘L'urbanesimo romano dopo le guerre d'Oriente’, in Storia di Roma vol. 2.1 (1990), 385–98;Google Scholar F. Kolb, Rom. Die Geschichte der Stadt in der Antike (1995), 198–221.

90 On the tomb of the Scipios, see F. Coarelli, Il Sepolcro degli Scipioni a Roma (1988). On Hellenistic parallels in the naming of architectural and other benefactions to Greek cities after their royal donors, see K. Bringmann, ‘The king as benefactor: some remarks on ideal kingship in the age of Hellenism’, in A. W. Bulloch, E. S. Gruen, A. Long and A. Stewart (eds), Images and Ideologies: Self-Definition in the Hellenistic World (1993), 7–24; for the evidence, see Bringmann, K. and von Steuben, H. (eds), Schenkungen hellenistischer Herrscher an griechische Städte und Heiligtümer, vol. 1, Zeugnisse und Kommentar (1995)Google Scholar.

91 A coincidence first noted by Alföldi, op. cit.(n. 63), 74. Interestingly, as Frier, op. cit. (n. 17), 217–18, has pointed out, it is from around 135 B.C., precisely the time of the revolution of the denarius types, that a preference becomes apparent in the sources for the title annales for the works of the historians of this period.

92 Livy 8.40.4–5: ‘Vitiatam memoriam funebribus laudibus reor falsisque imaginum titulis, dum familiae ad se quaeque famam rerum gestarum honorumque fallente mendacio trahunt; inde certe et singlorum gesta et publica monumenta rerum confusa.’ Cf. Cic., Brut. 62: ‘quamquam his laudationibus historia rerum nostrarum est facta mendosior. multa enim scripta sunt in eis quae facta non sunt: falsi triumphi, plures consulatus, genera etiam falsa et ad plebem transitiones, cum homines humiliores in alienum eiusdem nominis infunderentur genus.’ See further Frier, op. cit. (n. 50), 92–3.

93 On the destruction of public and private historical records in the Gallic sack, see Livy 6.1.2 (monumentis), and Plut., Num. 1.1.

94 E. Badian, ‘The early historians’, in T. A. Dorey (ed.), Latin Historians (1966), 1–38, at 11.

95 For fundamental discussion of the second-century historians, Rawson, E., ‘The first Latin annalists’, RCS, 245–71 (= Latomus 35 (1976), 689–717)Google Scholar. On Piso, see now G. Forsythe, The Historian L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi and the Roman Annalistic Tradition (1994).

96 cf. Badian, op. cit. (n. 94), 12: ‘there was simply not as much information to be had as Gellius produced.’

97 E. Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic (1985), 234–5. For Tuditanus' work on magistracies, see Macr., Sat. 1.13.21. The M. Junius, surnamed Gracchanus (because of his friendship with the Gracchi according to Plin., NH 33.36), who wrote a work De Potestatibus (mentioned by Cic, Leg. 3.49, who says it was dedicated to Atticus' father; Dig. 1.13.1.pr. (Ulpian) in connection with the origin of the quaestorship; and Lyd., De Mag. 1.24), is usually presumed to be identical with Junius Congus, a historian and legal writer mentioned by Cicero (De Or. 1.256; Plane. 58), and a Iunius Congus named by Lucilius as his ideal reader, neither too learned nor ignorant (595f. MArx = 591–3 Krenkel = 26.17 Charpin). For discussion, see C. Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (1908), 121–7; B. Rankov, ‘M. Junius Congus the Gracchan’, in M. Whitby, P. Hardie and M. Whitby (eds), Homo Viator. Classical Essays for John Bramble (1987), 89–94. On Aelius Stilo, see R. A. Kaster (ed.), C. Suetonius Tranquillus. De Grammaticis et Rhetoribus (1995), 68–70.

98 Livy 4.13.7 with Frier, op. cit. (n. 17), 156.

99 Woolf, G. D., ‘Monumental writing and the expansion of Roman society in the early Empire’, JRS 86 (1996), 22–39,Google Scholar at 30–1.

100 Rawson, op. cit. (n. 95), 260; and eadem, ‘Cicero as historian and antiquarian’, RCS, 58–79 (= JRS 62 (1972), 33–45)Google Scholar, at 62: ‘Just as the crisis of the late second century had stimulated a first flowering of antiquarianism, the breakdown of Republican order in the fifties gave the impulse for the second.’

101 cf. Cic., De Or. 2.53 (of Fabius Pictor, Cato, and Piso): ‘sine ullis ornamentis monumenta solum temporum, hominum, locorum gestarumque rerum relinquerunt’ (‘they left records only of times, people, places and deeds, devoid of all rhetorical embellishment’).

102 Rawson, op. cit. (n. 95), 251–65.

103 Fr. 38 Peter = Pliny, NH 17.244. For another of his moralizing outbursts, cf. fr. 40 Peter ap. Cic., Fam. 9.22.2: ‘Piso ille Frugi in annalibus suis queritur, adulescentes peni deditos esse’ (‘The famous Piso Frugi complains in his History that the young men are given over to the penis’).

104 For references, see Coarelli, op. cit. (n. 89), 22. The refoundation of the Capitoline temple of Ops is often dated to c. 117 B.C. and attributed to L. Metellus Delmaticus (cos. 119 B.C.). This is entirely uncertain. See J. Aronen in LTUR 111, 362–4 for the evidence.

105 cf. Purcell, op. cit. (n. 5), 150–1. If, as seems plausible, the connection between this building and the two inscriptions (CIL I2.737 = ILS 35 =ILLRP 367; CIL I2.736 = ILS 35a = ILLRP 368) traditionally assumed to pin its construction to 78 B.C. is thought not to be beyond doubt, its date can be allowed to be a more movable feast, regardless of its eventual identity. Purcell also conjectures (ibid., 151 and ‘Rediscovering the Forum’, JRA 2 (1989), 156–70,Google Scholar at 161) that the location of the Basilica Opimia might be sought in the porticoed façade running along the south-east face.

106 That Scaurus rededicated both these temples is attested by Cicero, ND 2.61. The exact date is not. See C. Reusser in LTUR II, 249–52 on Fides and III, 240–1 on Mens, who proposes that Scaurus vowed both temples whilst on campaign in nothern Italy as consul in 115 B.C., and dedicated them as censor in 109. He firmly rejects the notion (argued for by Martin, H. G., Römische Tempelkultbilder (1987), 126–31Google Scholar) that the Scaurus in question was his son of the same name, the aedile of 58 B.C. See further idem, Der Fidestempel auf dem Kapitol in Rom und seine Ausstattung (1993), 55–61.

107 See Astin, op. cit. (n. 45), 28–31. On the evidence for Scaurus' appointment as princeps senatus in 115 B.C., see MRR I, 533 n. 2.

108 It is also worth noting that L. Piso Frugi must have been censor in 120 B.C. There is no clear evidence that he exercised an especially severe censorship, though his extra cognomen Censorius is at least suggestive, unless it simply means ‘former censor’. Not all censors were so named however, and the frequency of its use in connection with Piso surely suggests that his censorship was especially memorable. See MRR I, 523 and Forsythe, op. cit. (n. 95), 421 for the sources.

109 Sources for consulship in MRR I, 531; for censorship in MRR I, 545.

110 T. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte (1920), I, 216.

111 For a similar conclusion with regard to Roman imperial coins, see the excellent article by Cheung, A., ‘The political significance of Roman imperial coin types’, SM 48 (1998), 53–61Google Scholar.

112 For a recent review of the long-standing debate about propaganda and coin types, see Levick, B., ‘Messages on Roman coinage: types and inscriptions’, in Paul and Ierardi, op. cit. (n. 58), 41–60Google Scholar.