Liberalitas V Sestertius of Severus Alexander

[mix_val]

Here's a rare Sestertius of Severus Alexander that I bought at auction. Already posted to my gallery but I wanted to give it some extra exposure.

Obverse: IMP ALEXAN_DER PIVS AVG
Bust laureate right, left shoulder slightly draped
Reverse: LIB(E)_RALITAS AVGV_STI V  SC exergue
Severus Alexander seated left on curule chair on decorated plaform and behind him an officer and soldier holdng a spear in left hand; in front, Liberalitas standing left, holding coin counter and cornucopiae; at left citizen mounting steps to platform.  

BMC 948* RIC 534
Weight, 17.937g; die axis, 12h.

The Sestertius platform reverses appear for Liberalitas I, IIII and V but apparently not for II and III.  

[curtislclay]

Largesse scene IIII of 229 AD is fairly common on sestertii, and on asses too for that matter.

I of 222 and V of 232 are rare to very rare on sestertii. Congratulations on acquiring the V, which I bid on myself, despite already having one in slightly lesser condition, which I hope will end up in BM.

II of 224 is known on large bronze medallions (BM 210*), and I have discovered that a unique sestertius exists too, in the Vienna collection. The II is off flan, so the piece has been arranged in the collection as though it were a I; but I noticed that the portrait didn't fit 222, and checking BMC soon found a link to 224. If I remember correctly the Vienna coin is from the same obv. die as BMC pl. 8, 208*, with rev. IOVI VLTORI TR P III COS P P S C; so the rev. legend was undoubtedly originally LIBERALITAS AVGVSTI II, not (I). Unfortunately I didn't write the new coin into my copy of BMC, nor do I recall making a plaster cast of it; but I did write my observation onto the ticket below the coin in the Vienna trays!

Largesse scene III of 226 is known on medallic asses without S C, BM 321. Maybe a corresponding sestertius will someday turn up for this largesse too!

I think the date of Alexander's fifth largesse was 232, not 233 as proposed in BMC: for some of the coins commemorating this largesse have a broken obv. legend, and some have a continuous legend. This was a change that occurred in 232: all coins of 231 have broken legends, in 232 some have broken but others continuous legends, and in 233-5 all have continuous legends. BMC was misled by the large medallion of 233 commemorating Alexander's victory in Mesopotamia, BM 949*; but this medallion was very probably a New Year's gift for 1 Jan. 233, and its rev. type evidently commemorated a victory which had been the major event of the previous year. The Mesopotamian campaign must have been over by 232, if Alexander could see fit to distribute a largesse in that year, and if he himself was in Rome to distribute that largesse, as the platform-scene sestertius suggests!

[mix_val]

I'll be on the look out for II but I think that I'll have competition     

Is there an example of an emperor not being present during a distribution of money to the people of Rome?

[curtislclay]

Is there an example of an emperor not being present during a distribution of money to the people of Rome?

I think Hadrian is attested to have distributed his first largesse to the Roman people in 117, while he was still absent in the East.

However, he didn't commemorate this distribution at all on his coins, let alone use the platform-scene type!

Another example is Max. Thrax, who distributed his first and only largesse in 236, though he apparently never made it to Rome during his reign.

Yet Max. Thrax did use the platform-scene type on his coins! So we have to admit that that type is not irrefutable evidence of the emperor's presence in Rome.

Since it was the emperor's largesse, and he was there "in spirit", he could be shown sitting on his curule chair in the platform type, even if he was in fact not there, and the largesse had just been distributed by his officials. (Or Max. Thrax did make it to Rome to assume the consulship on 1 Jan. 236 and distribute a largesse, but no literary or epigraphical evidence of his visit has come down to us, just the consular-quadriga and platform-scene coins!)

There was a strong connection between the emperor's presence in Rome and his distribution of largesse, as we can see for example from Dio's account of the crowd's begging for a largesse after Marcus Aurelius' return to Rome after a long absence fighting on the Danube. When Marcus admitted that he had indeed been gone a long time, the crowd shouted back "Eight years!" and held up eight fingers, hoping for a gift of eight aurei or 200 denarii per man!

When Avidius Cassius rebelled in 175 while Marcus was fighting on the Danube, Marcus had Commodus distribute a largesse in Rome before joining Marcus on the Danube for the expedition against Avidius. On the coins, Marcus used only the Liberalitas-standing type for this largesse, his sixth (BM pl. 65.13), while Commodus used both that type and the platform type, the latter showing however just Commodus seated on the platform, not Marcus and Commodus together! (BM pl. 66.4 and 9, pl. 84.14). So in this case the coins reflected very precisely who was in Rome to distribute the largesse, and who on the other hand was absent.

[curtislclay]

Macrinus and Diadumenian certainly never got to Rome during their 14-month reign, but nevertheless distributed a largesse in spring 218 according to when the type appeared on the coins, and also struck the platform type, showing both of them presiding at their largesse. So their use of the platform type was certainly figurative only: they were still in the East when their largesse was distributed, despite the coin type showing them present for the occasion!

[mix_val]

This settles the issue in my mind.   Largesse sounds like a good subject for a classical PhD thesis.

[curtislclay]

In 1938 the Belgian D. van Berchem published an absolutely first-rate dissertation in French on distributions of grain and of money at Rome including analysis of largesse types on coins and the chronology and occasions of the largesses attested.

However, there would certainly be room for a new and even more detailed treatment of when largesses were distributed and how the distributions were carried out. Like the study of decennalian vows, this is a topic for which the preponderance of the evidence is numismatic!