Clemency and Moderation: The Forgotten Virtues of Tiberius

[CPK]

Clemency and Moderation: The Forgotten Virtues of Tiberius

“The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interrèd with their bones”

- William Shakespeare (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene II)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The verdict of history hasn’t been particularly kind to Tiberius. Ancient historians give us the picture of a cruel, conniving, and surly individual. Senators despised and feared him. His subjects loathed him and rejoiced openly when he died at the ripe old age of 77. You might say that, though a capable enough administrator and a fine military leader, Tiberius didn’t necessarily embody the virtues of, say, clemency and moderation.

And yet, those virtues are precisely the ones we see specifically attributed to him in a remarkable series of middle-bronze coinage! These are the well-known “CLEMENTIAE” and “MODERATIONI(S)” dupondii, which are unlike any other Roman Imperial coinage that I’m aware of, and an example of which I am proud to present as one of my latest coin acquisitions!

TIBERIUS, AD 14-37
AE Dupondius (27.93mm, 13.71g, 12h)
Struck circa AD 22/3. Rome mint
Obverse: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST IMP VIII, laureate head of Tiberius left
Reverse: CLEMENTIAE, small facing bust within laurel wreath at center of elaborately decorated circular shield; S–C on either side
References: RIC I 38, RCV 1767
Glossy green patina. A rare and interesting type proclaiming the emperor's clemency - a quality for which Julius Caesar had been famous, and which his successors sought to emulate. The exact reason for Tiberius' issue of this type is still debated, as well as the identity of the facing bust in the shield's center.
Acquired from Harlan J. Berk, 228th Buy or Bid Sale, lot 388

 

(These coins are only rated “scarce” in RIC, but I would say that is a considerable understatement, certainly in terms of market availability.)

Almost everything about these enigmatic coins has been or is still being debated – date of issue, the reason for the issue, the identity of the small facing bust on the reverse, and more. We’ll take a look at a few of the theories and conclusions on these debates.

- OVERVIEW -

First of all, an overview of the design. The obverse is attractive but unremarkable – a laureate left-facing portrait of the emperor with his titles.

The reverse is, of course, where it gets really interesting. We have the image of an imago clipeata – an elaborately decorated round shield with a facing portrait in the middle. The bust is surrounded by a laurel wreath, which in turn is encircled by a raised border of thick petals. About this is a border of stylized palmettes separated by straight lines flanked by dots. Above this is the inscription “CLEMENTIAE”, with the formulaic S / C on either side.

The only other instance of an imago clipeata appearing on a Roman Imperial coin is a single very rare type issued under Augustus circa 16 BC, which shows a much larger and easily identifiable portrait of the emperor three-quarters facing, surrounded by a dotted border and laurel wreath.

 

[Fig. 1 – Augustus Denarius, RIC I 356. Source: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7448247]

 

IDENTITY OF THE FACING BUST

The identity of the small facing bust on the Tiberian dupondii has alternatively been suggested as being Tiberius himself, personifications of the virtues celebrated, or the two princes Drusus and Germanicus. The strongest, and I think majority view, is the one shared by Harold Mattingly and Bernhard Woytek – that the small facing portrait is of Tiberius.¹ This not only fits with our only other imago clipeata coin – the Augustan denarius shown above – but additionally, at least one existing CLEMENTIAE type retains enough detail on the small facing bust to reasonably attribute it to Tiberius.² In the end, however, it may never be possible to come to an absolutely definitive answer.

- DATE OF ISSUE -

1. TITULAR

The obverse reference to Tiberius’ eighth imperatorial acclamation is the only indication of a date with this issue, but since it is thought that this occurred in AD 16, and was his last such acclamation,³ it doesn’t narrow the date range for us very much. In fact, these two dupondii types are the only coins of Tiberius that don’t also include a tribunician date.⁴ Thus, the titular title given is of little use for precise dating.

2. STYLISTIC

Mattingly argued in 1923 for an issue date of AD 22/3 based on portrait style. This argument was supported by C. H. V. Sutherland.⁵ The younger, more idealized portraits seen on these dupondii fit better within the mid-reign portrait style; the bronze coins struck in Tiberius’s last years show a distinctly more aged, realistic portrait of an emperor who by then was in his seventies. As Sutherland wrote:

“If one assembles 20 or 30 dates aes portrait coins of A.D. 14-23, and 20 or 30 of A.D. 34-7, and if a steady comparison is then made of what must in each case have been portraits of those times, there can surely be no question that the portraits of A.D. 14-23 are firm and well-fleshed, while those of A.D. 34-7 are those of a really old man, with sunken eyes, hollow cheeks, and bony forms. And it is with the class of the earlier portraits that the Clementiae-Moderationi dupondii are seen to accord, since they do not show the more senile characteristics of the later coins.”⁶

 

[Fig. 2 – early vs. late portrait styles, struck AD 16 and 36/7 respectively. Sources: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=12315424, https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4971407]

 

3. STUDY OF PSEUDO MEDALLIONS BY WOYTEK

A fascinating study was recently conducted by Bernhard E. Woytek which, in my mind, brings all the lines of evidence together and conclusively settles the question. First of all, he agreed with the argument based on portrait style as put forth by Mattingly and Sutherland.⁷ Additionally, he pointed out that these two issues are thematically similar to the IVSTITIA, PIETAS, and SALVS AVGVSTA dupondii types issued in AD 22/3, which are datable by the tribunician title given on the reverse.

The core of the study, though, is given to the examination of ‘pseudo medallions’ of this type – that is, regular coin dies struck on intentionally oversized and overweight flans. There exist a couple specimens of the MODERATIONI type, and one, newly surfaced CLEMENTIAE type which were struck on flans of the correct size, material, and weight for sestertii.

 

[Fig. 3 – CLEMENTIAE pseudo medallion. Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372]

(Incidentally, this CLEMENTIAE medallion is an obverse die match to my coin.)

 

Woytek argues convincingly that this should be taken as evidence that the dupondii were struck at the same time the Rome mint was producing sestertii – which would mean a date no earlier than AD 22, since no regular sestertii were produced during the first eight years of Tiberius’s rule.⁸ After the dated sestertii issue of AD 22/3, production again ceased until AD 34/5. Woytek concludes, “Since such a late dating of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) coins may safely be excluded, as laid out above, this means that the group should have been produced not before - and probably in connection with - the large Tiberian bronze issue of AD 22/3. Hence, the dating of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) pieces originally proposed by Harold Mattingly in BMCRE I should stand.”

- REASON FOR THE ISSUE -

So having established the date of the issue, the next question is, “Were these types issued for a specific reason, and if so, what?”

Here again, this has historically been a debated topic. But with a (decently) established date of issue, things become a little clearer. Our primary historical source for this period is Tacitus. He records a number of details which shed some light on the question.

Under Roman law one could be accused of the crime of maiestas, which might loosely be defined as bringing dishonor upon the Roman name.⁹ It was considered a treasonous crime, and its vagueness made it extremely prone to abuse. It would seem that under Tiberius, charges of maiestas began to increase in frequency. There was an incentive: accusers were awarded a share of the condemned man’s property, which led to the development of a professional class of informers called delatores.

From Tacitus we learn that Tiberius, for all his later reputation for vengefulness, did on many occasions exercise a surprising degree of leniency and restraint towards those who offended him, and he made a practice of dismissing these trumped-up charges of maiestas, using his authority to blunt the power of the informers. When the Senate convicted and executed one Clutorius Priscus for having written an obituary for Drusus before he was dead, Tiberius expressed his disapproval, and caused a new law to be passed allowing the condemned a time of reprieve.¹⁰

That these actions gained for Tiberius a certain reputation for moderation is explicitly stated by Tacitus, writing about the year AD 22 in Book III, 3.56:

“Tiberius having gained credit for moderationis by the check he had given to the growing terror of the informers, wrote a letter to the Senate, requesting the tribunitian power for Drusus….”

Sutherland neatly summarizes, pointing out

“…the excellent judicial record of Tiberius' first ten years of power. Tacitus himself, as we have seen, includes in the annals of the year 22 the admission that Tiberius' repression of professional accusers had won for him the reputation of Moderatio – a quality which is frequently combined with Clementia. Is it an empty coincidence that we have these two types of dupondii, bearing most conspicuous medallic designs which emphasise these very virtues – coins which are most nearly related to the TR. P. XXIIII IMP. VIII issues of A.D. 22/23, and which, by their style and mint technique, would appear to belong to a quite limited period? The hypothesis here propounded is that the Senate, in A.D. 22, presented Tiberius with shields of Clemency and Moderation – an act of which an echo is preserved in the pages of Tacitus – and that, the formal but well-earned honour once conferred, the Senate proceeded by means of their coinage to call wide public attention to the imperial virtues which their ceremonial action had just recognized.”¹¹

Of course, as Tiberius aged, his rule became markedly less known for moderation and clemency; but in AD 22/3 that was still in the future. For now, the Senate and people of Rome had reason to be thankful and appreciative of these virtues, becoming to a princeps, which Tiberius exhibited.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for reading! It has been a lot of fun researching and putting this little article together. Please feel free to comment and/or post your own relevant coins!

 

 

NOTES

[1] Woytek, B. E. (2017). Tiberian Pseudo Medallions of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) Group and the Problem of Chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 177, p. 85 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372?seq=3)

[2] The British Museum, Inventory No. 1921,0612.3 (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1921-0612-3)

[3] Woytek, B. E. (2017). Tiberian Pseudo Medallions of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) Group and the Problem of Chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 177, p. 85 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372?seq=3)

[4] Sutherland, C. H. V. (1938). Two ‘Virtues’ of Tiberius: A Numismatic Contribution to the History of His Reign. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 28, Part 2, p. 131 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/296656)

[5] Sutherland, C. H. V. (1979). The Clementiae and Moderationi dupondii of Tiberius: more thoughts on the chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 19, p. 22 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/42667027?seq=3)

[6] Same, p. 23

[7] Woytek, B. E. (2017). Tiberian Pseudo Medallions of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) Group and the Problem of Chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 177, p. 86 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372)

[8] Same, p. 89

[9] Oxford Reference, “maiestas” (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100127113)

[10] Tacitus. Annals, Book III, 49-51 (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D49)

[11] Sutherland, C. H. V. (1938). Two ‘Virtues’ of Tiberius: A Numismatic Contribution to the History of His Reign. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 28, Part 2, p. 139 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/296656)

[Roman Collector]

That is a scarce coin with a lot of eye-appeal, particularly because of its lovely patina. Definitely a keeper!!! Very interesting write-up and compelling argument about dating. The coin may not have been issued in response to a specific historical event. Rather, the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) dupondii may have formed part of a set of "Roman Values" dupondii struck roughly concurrently: Clementia, Moderatio, Justitia, Pietas, and Salus. Here's the only coin in my collection from such a "set."


Tiberius, 14-37 CE.
Roman orichalcum Dupondius, 14.32 g, 29.15 mm, 1 h.
Rome, 22/23 CE.
Obv: PIETAS, veiled, diademed and draped bust of (Vipsania? as) Pietas, right.
Rev: DRVSVS CAESAR TI AVGVSTI F TR POT ITER around large SC.
Refs: RIC Tiberius 43; BMCRE Tiberius 98; CBN Tiberius 74; Cohen 1; RCV 1741.

[Coinmaster]

Great research, interesting read and very nice coin. Thanks for sharing!
I only have one suggestion: perhaps the reverse of your coin is showing the Genius of Tiberius?

[CPK]

18 minutes ago, Roman Collector said:

That is a scarce coin with a lot of eye-appeal, particularly because of its lovely patina. Definitely a keeper!!! Very interesting write-up and compelling argument about dating. The coin may not have been issued in response to a specific historical event. Rather, the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) dupondii may have formed part of a set of "Roman Values" dupondii struck roughly concurrently: Clementia, Moderatio, Justitia, Pietas, and Salus. Here's the only coin in my collection from such a "set."


Tiberius, 14-37 CE.
Roman orichalcum Dupondius, 14.32 g, 29.15 mm, 1 h.
Rome, 22/23 CE.
Obv: PIETAS, veiled, diademed and draped bust of (Vipsania? as) Pietas, right.
Rev: DRVSVS CAESAR TI AVGVSTI F TR POT ITER around large SC.
Refs: RIC Tiberius 43; BMCRE Tiberius 98; CBN Tiberius 74; Cohen 1; RCV 1741.

Thanks! That's a nice coin. You make a great point (which Woytek also highlighted) about the similarities between the two issues, and I definitely see that connection. But in my view, the differences are sufficient to require an additional explanation for the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) types. Sutherland demonstrated through his die study that those two types were struck together over a relatively short time period, plus they are of a much more medallic and commemorative design IMO than the other, more regular 'Virtues' types.

 

12 minutes ago, Coinmaster said:

Great research, interesting read and very nice coin. Thanks for sharing!
I only have one suggestion: perhaps the reverse of your coin is showing the Genius of Tiberius?

Thank you! That's an interesting suggestion. I don't think I came across that argument in my researches, although it certainly sounds plausible!

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

That's a wonderful piece!  It's also a great reverse and there's a lovely patina.  My only attractive Tiberius is an unphotographed AE of a more mundane type.

[Ancient Coin Hunter]

Great pick up. My only Tiberius is this one. (Luke chapter 20 verse 22-25)

"

 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?

23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.

25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. "

[CPK]

18 minutes ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

That's a wonderful piece!  It's also a great reverse and there's a lovely patina.  My only attractive Tiberius is an unphotographed AE of a more mundane type.

Thanks!

 

7 minutes ago, Ancient Coin Hunter said:

Great pick up. My only Tiberius is this one. (Luke chapter 20 verse 22-25)

"

 22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?

23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.

25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. "

Nice "Tribute penny"! I like the portrait. 👍

[Curtisimo]

Really great coin and write up Connor! The portrait, especially, is quite nice!

Edited September 21 by Curtisimo

[Nerosmyfavorite68]

The Gallic rebellion was right smack in the middle of that period. Might it be some reference to that?

[CPK]

52 minutes ago, Curtisimo said:

Really great coin and write up Connor! The portrait, especially, is quite nice!

Thanks Curtis!

 

51 minutes ago, Nerosmyfavorite68 said:

The Gallic rebellion was right smack in the middle of that period. Might it be some reference to that?

That is definitely a possibility, and one which was mentioned in some of the articles I read in researching this coin.

[Octavius]

One very handsome looking coin! Congratulations.

[AETHER]

Beautiful, crazy reverse.

 

[Limes]

Ah, you got that coin, well done! It truly is more than scarce. The portrait is fantastic, very stylistic, and the reverse of this issue especially is something else.  Definitely a keeper. 

Edited September 22 by Limes

[CPK]

13 hours ago, Octavius said:

One very handsome looking coin! Congratulations.

12 hours ago, AETHER said:

Beautiful, crazy reverse.

 

4 hours ago, Limes said:

Ah, you got that coin, well done! It truly is more than scarce. The portrait is fantastic, very stylistic, and the reverse of this issue especially is something else.  Definitely a keeper. 

Thank you all! I debated over the coin when I first saw it come out in the sale. There were a couple coins I was interested in - this one, and a very nice respectable Caligula Vesta as, both about the same price...in the end I decided to purchase the Tiberius, mostly because opportunities arise so seldom for that type!

[Al Kowsky]

On 9/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, CPK said:

Clemency and Moderation: The Forgotten Virtues of Tiberius

“The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interrèd with their bones”

- William Shakespeare (Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene II)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The verdict of history hasn’t been particularly kind to Tiberius. Ancient historians give us the picture of a cruel, conniving, and surly individual. Senators despised and feared him. His subjects loathed him and rejoiced openly when he died at the ripe old age of 77. You might say that, though a capable enough administrator and a fine military leader, Tiberius didn’t necessarily embody the virtues of, say, clemency and moderation.

And yet, those virtues are precisely the ones we see specifically attributed to him in a remarkable series of middle-bronze coinage! These are the well-known “CLEMENTIAE” and “MODERATIONI(S)” dupondii, which are unlike any other Roman Imperial coinage that I’m aware of, and an example of which I am proud to present as one of my latest coin acquisitions!

TIBERIUS, AD 14-37
AE Dupondius (27.93mm, 13.71g, 12h)
Struck circa AD 22/3. Rome mint
Obverse: TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVST IMP VIII, laureate head of Tiberius left
Reverse: CLEMENTIAE, small facing bust within laurel wreath at center of elaborately decorated circular shield; S–C on either side
References: RIC I 38, RCV 1767
Glossy green patina. A rare and interesting type proclaiming the emperor's clemency - a quality for which Julius Caesar had been famous, and which his successors sought to emulate. The exact reason for Tiberius' issue of this type is still debated, as well as the identity of the facing bust in the shield's center.
Acquired from Harlan J. Berk, 228th Buy or Bid Sale, lot 388

 

(These coins are only rated “scarce” in RIC, but I would say that is a considerable understatement, certainly in terms of market availability.)

Almost everything about these enigmatic coins has been or is still being debated – date of issue, the reason for the issue, the identity of the small facing bust on the reverse, and more. We’ll take a look at a few of the theories and conclusions on these debates.

- OVERVIEW -

First of all, an overview of the design. The obverse is attractive but unremarkable – a laureate left-facing portrait of the emperor with his titles.

The reverse is, of course, where it gets really interesting. We have the image of an imago clipeata – an elaborately decorated round shield with a facing portrait in the middle. The bust is surrounded by a laurel wreath, which in turn is encircled by a raised border of thick petals. About this is a border of stylized palmettes separated by straight lines flanked by dots. Above this is the inscription “CLEMENTIAE”, with the formulaic S / C on either side.

The only other instance of an imago clipeata appearing on a Roman Imperial coin is a single very rare type issued under Augustus circa 16 BC, which shows a much larger and easily identifiable portrait of the emperor three-quarters facing, surrounded by a dotted border and laurel wreath.

 

[Fig. 1 – Augustus Denarius, RIC I 356. Source: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=7448247]

 

IDENTITY OF THE FACING BUST

The identity of the small facing bust on the Tiberian dupondii has alternatively been suggested as being Tiberius himself, personifications of the virtues celebrated, or the two princes Drusus and Germanicus. The strongest, and I think majority view, is the one shared by Harold Mattingly and Bernhard Woytek – that the small facing portrait is of Tiberius.¹ This not only fits with our only other imago clipeata coin – the Augustan denarius shown above – but additionally, at least one existing CLEMENTIAE type retains enough detail on the small facing bust to reasonably attribute it to Tiberius.² In the end, however, it may never be possible to come to an absolutely definitive answer.

- DATE OF ISSUE -

1. TITULAR

The obverse reference to Tiberius’ eighth imperatorial acclamation is the only indication of a date with this issue, but since it is thought that this occurred in AD 16, and was his last such acclamation,³ it doesn’t narrow the date range for us very much. In fact, these two dupondii types are the only coins of Tiberius that don’t also include a tribunician date.⁴ Thus, the titular title given is of little use for precise dating.

2. STYLISTIC

Mattingly argued in 1923 for an issue date of AD 22/3 based on portrait style. This argument was supported by C. H. V. Sutherland.⁵ The younger, more idealized portraits seen on these dupondii fit better within the mid-reign portrait style; the bronze coins struck in Tiberius’s last years show a distinctly more aged, realistic portrait of an emperor who by then was in his seventies. As Sutherland wrote:

“If one assembles 20 or 30 dates aes portrait coins of A.D. 14-23, and 20 or 30 of A.D. 34-7, and if a steady comparison is then made of what must in each case have been portraits of those times, there can surely be no question that the portraits of A.D. 14-23 are firm and well-fleshed, while those of A.D. 34-7 are those of a really old man, with sunken eyes, hollow cheeks, and bony forms. And it is with the class of the earlier portraits that the Clementiae-Moderationi dupondii are seen to accord, since they do not show the more senile characteristics of the later coins.”⁶

 

[Fig. 2 – early vs. late portrait styles, struck AD 16 and 36/7 respectively. Sources: https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=12315424, https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=4971407]

 

3. STUDY OF PSEUDO MEDALLIONS BY WOYTEK

A fascinating study was recently conducted by Bernhard E. Woytek which, in my mind, brings all the lines of evidence together and conclusively settles the question. First of all, he agreed with the argument based on portrait style as put forth by Mattingly and Sutherland.⁷ Additionally, he pointed out that these two issues are thematically similar to the IVSTITIA, PIETAS, and SALVS AVGVSTA dupondii types issued in AD 22/3, which are datable by the tribunician title given on the reverse.

The core of the study, though, is given to the examination of ‘pseudo medallions’ of this type – that is, regular coin dies struck on intentionally oversized and overweight flans. There exist a couple specimens of the MODERATIONI type, and one, newly surfaced CLEMENTIAE type which were struck on flans of the correct size, material, and weight for sestertii.

 

[Fig. 3 – CLEMENTIAE pseudo medallion. Source: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372]

(Incidentally, this CLEMENTIAE medallion is an obverse die match to my coin.)

 

Woytek argues convincingly that this should be taken as evidence that the dupondii were struck at the same time the Rome mint was producing sestertii – which would mean a date no earlier than AD 22, since no regular sestertii were produced during the first eight years of Tiberius’s rule.⁸ After the dated sestertii issue of AD 22/3, production again ceased until AD 34/5. Woytek concludes, “Since such a late dating of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) coins may safely be excluded, as laid out above, this means that the group should have been produced not before - and probably in connection with - the large Tiberian bronze issue of AD 22/3. Hence, the dating of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) pieces originally proposed by Harold Mattingly in BMCRE I should stand.”

- REASON FOR THE ISSUE -

So having established the date of the issue, the next question is, “Were these types issued for a specific reason, and if so, what?”

Here again, this has historically been a debated topic. But with a (decently) established date of issue, things become a little clearer. Our primary historical source for this period is Tacitus. He records a number of details which shed some light on the question.

Under Roman law one could be accused of the crime of maiestas, which might loosely be defined as bringing dishonor upon the Roman name.⁹ It was considered a treasonous crime, and its vagueness made it extremely prone to abuse. It would seem that under Tiberius, charges of maiestas began to increase in frequency. There was an incentive: accusers were awarded a share of the condemned man’s property, which led to the development of a professional class of informers called delatores.

From Tacitus we learn that Tiberius, for all his later reputation for vengefulness, did on many occasions exercise a surprising degree of leniency and restraint towards those who offended him, and he made a practice of dismissing these trumped-up charges of maiestas, using his authority to blunt the power of the informers. When the Senate convicted and executed one Clutorius Priscus for having written an obituary for Drusus before he was dead, Tiberius expressed his disapproval, and caused a new law to be passed allowing the condemned a time of reprieve.¹⁰

That these actions gained for Tiberius a certain reputation for moderation is explicitly stated by Tacitus, writing about the year AD 22 in Book III, 3.56:

“Tiberius having gained credit for moderationis by the check he had given to the growing terror of the informers, wrote a letter to the Senate, requesting the tribunitian power for Drusus….”

Sutherland neatly summarizes, pointing out

“…the excellent judicial record of Tiberius' first ten years of power. Tacitus himself, as we have seen, includes in the annals of the year 22 the admission that Tiberius' repression of professional accusers had won for him the reputation of Moderatio – a quality which is frequently combined with Clementia. Is it an empty coincidence that we have these two types of dupondii, bearing most conspicuous medallic designs which emphasise these very virtues – coins which are most nearly related to the TR. P. XXIIII IMP. VIII issues of A.D. 22/23, and which, by their style and mint technique, would appear to belong to a quite limited period? The hypothesis here propounded is that the Senate, in A.D. 22, presented Tiberius with shields of Clemency and Moderation – an act of which an echo is preserved in the pages of Tacitus – and that, the formal but well-earned honour once conferred, the Senate proceeded by means of their coinage to call wide public attention to the imperial virtues which their ceremonial action had just recognized.”¹¹

Of course, as Tiberius aged, his rule became markedly less known for moderation and clemency; but in AD 22/3 that was still in the future. For now, the Senate and people of Rome had reason to be thankful and appreciative of these virtues, becoming to a princeps, which Tiberius exhibited.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thank you for reading! It has been a lot of fun researching and putting this little article together. Please feel free to comment and/or post your own relevant coins!

 

 

 

NOTES

[1] Woytek, B. E. (2017). Tiberian Pseudo Medallions of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) Group and the Problem of Chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 177, p. 85 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372?seq=3)

[2] The British Museum, Inventory No. 1921,0612.3 (https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/C_1921-0612-3)

[3] Woytek, B. E. (2017). Tiberian Pseudo Medallions of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) Group and the Problem of Chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 177, p. 85 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372?seq=3)

[4] Sutherland, C. H. V. (1938). Two ‘Virtues’ of Tiberius: A Numismatic Contribution to the History of His Reign. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 28, Part 2, p. 131 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/296656)

[5] Sutherland, C. H. V. (1979). The Clementiae and Moderationi dupondii of Tiberius: more thoughts on the chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 19, p. 22 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/42667027?seq=3)

[6] Same, p. 23

[7] Woytek, B. E. (2017). Tiberian Pseudo Medallions of the CLEMENTIAE/MODERATIONI(S) Group and the Problem of Chronology. The Numismatic Chronicle, Vol. 177, p. 86 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/26637372)

[8] Same, p. 89

[9] Oxford Reference, “maiestas” (https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100127113)

[10] Tacitus. Annals, Book III, 49-51 (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0078%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D49)

[11] Sutherland, C. H. V. (1938). Two ‘Virtues’ of Tiberius: A Numismatic Contribution to the History of His Reign. The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 28, Part 2, p. 139 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/296656)

Excellent score & engaging writeup 🤩!

[Octavius]

4 hours ago, CPK said:

Thank you all! I debated over the coin when I first saw it come out in the sale. There were a couple coins I was interested in - this one, and a very nice respectable Caligula Vesta as, both about the same price...in the end I decided to purchase the Tiberius, mostly because opportunities arise so seldom for that type!

You definitely made the right choice. Your coin is rather scarce and very hard to come by!