The early bronzes of L. Verus without TR P

[curtislclay]

The tribunician power and proconsular imperium were the two crucial powers that made a man emperor.

We know that when the senators proclaimed a man emperor, they immediately voted him the tribunician power. However, the Arval Acts have demonstrated that, some weeks or months after an emperor's accession, tribunician assemblies of the people were also held, which evidently confirmed the Senate's decree and validated the emperor's tribunician power. For example Otho came to the throne on 15 Jan. 69, but his tribunician assembly met six weeks later, on 28 February. Domitian succeeded Titus on 13-14 Sept. 81, and two weeks later, on 30 September, his tribunician assembly met.

Now all of Otho's Roman coins called him TR P. Since his reign only lasted until 16 April, it seems very likely that a good number of these coins were struck before his tribunician assembly met on 28 February. He will not have postponed the commencement of his coinage from 15 Jan. until after 28 February. So Otho apparently considered the Senate's conferment of TR P on 15 January to be sufficient authority for him to call himself TR P on his coins.

Domitian's earliest coins as emperor, in contrast, did not call him TR P. That title only appeared a short way into his coinage of 14 Sept.-31 Dec. 81. Apparently Domitian was stricter than Otho and did not consider himself justified to add TR P on his coins until after his tribunician assembly had met on 30 September.

We know that Marcus Aurelius was exceptionally scrupulous about only accepting honorary titles that he thought he had actually earned. Thus it is no surprise to observe that Marcus' colleague Lucius Verus too apparently waited until his tribunician assembly had met before calling himself TR P on his coins. Lucius' earliest coins as emperor, like Domitian's, do not call him TR P; that title only appeared a short way into his coinage of 7 March-9 Dec. 161. I believe that this delay in Lucius' acceptance of the title TR P is the latest evidence we have for the continuation of the old practice of having tribunician assemblies meet to confirm the Senate's original conferment of that power on an emperor's dies imperii.

[Molinari]

That's really interesting, Curtis.  One would think Otho's seemingly controversial actions would  have been recorded.

[curtislclay]

Lucius' earliest denarii without TR P are scarce but obtainable. The commonest type is CONCORD AVG COS II, Concordia seated: 4 specimens in BM, 9 in the Reka Devnia hoard. The type COS II, togate emperor standing l. holding globe, is rarer: 2 in BM, 2 in the hoard. COS II, clasped hands in front of a standard, is very rare: none in BM or the hoard, not in Paris either since Cohen 65 cites Vienna. A rare aureus, not in BM, brings the type CONCORD AVGVSTOR COS II, Marcus and Lucius clasping right hands. Denarii of Lucius with TR P in 161 are in contrast much commoner; his type PROV DEOR TR P COS II in particular had 89 denarii in the hoard. So it seems unlikely that more than a month could have elapsed between Lucius' accession on 7 March and the meeting of his tribunician assembly; maybe it was only a couple of weeks.

Bronze coins of Lucius without TR P in 161 are considerably rarer than the denarii. The one halfway obtainable type is the sestertius with CONCORD AVGVSTOR COS II, Marcus and Lucius clasping right hands. BMC lacks that coin, but cites Cohen 24 and in a footnote describes a number of bust and legend variants from sale catalogues. CoinArchives Pro contains two or three specimens, including the one shown below.

Otherwise, BMC 1071A, pl. 75.6, has just one very rare sestertius of this issue, COS II, Marcus and Lucius as consuls of 161 seated on a platform, with a lictor standing on the ground before them; and BMC cites from Cohen 62 and 68 a sestertius and a dupondius with another very rare type, COS II, togate emperor standing l. holding globe. A type not in BMC or Cohen is FEL TEM COS II, Felicitas standing: Szaivert in his MIR volume cites two such sestertii, from Zwettl and a Kress catalogue of 1963; and I obtained a similar dupondius from Pagane in 2003.

The commonest denarius type of the issue, CONCORD AVG COS II, Concordia seated, finally, has so far not been attested on sestertii without TR P, but I recently obtained a nice specimen of such a coin, also shown below (dealer's pictures). This type is rare altogether on bronzes: for Lucius with TR P, two bust varieties in Paris according to Cohen 20 and 22, but not in BM; and for Marcus as TR P XV, BMC 840, cited by Cohen 29 only from Venice, and valued at 10 francs. I can only recall two specimens of this Concordia seated sestertius of Marcus, and none of Lucius as TR P, appearing on the market in the last twenty years or so.

[curtislclay]

Here is the sestertius type of Marcus and Verus seated on platform as consuls, guarded by a lictor, though from the later issue of 161, with legend TR POT COS II rather than just COS II.

The obverse die is the same as that used for the BM specimen of the same type with just COS II referred to above, BMC pl. 75.6.

The picture is from Wildwinds; the coin itself, freed from its slab, is now in my collection, ex CNG E317, Dec. 2013, lot 309.

[curtislclay]

That's really interesting, Curtis.  One would think Otho's seemingly controversial actions would have been recorded.

It would seem that most emperors followed Otho's course. I can't offhand think of any other emperor apart from Domitian and Lucius Verus who did not call himself TR P on his earliest coins. Apparently most emperors considered the senatorial decree sufficient and did not wait for the meeting of their tribunician assembly.

One could wonder: before the 10 Dec. tribunician day was introduced in the second century, did any emperor perhaps consider his tribunician day to be not his dies imperii, but rather the anniversary of the meeting of his tribunician assembly? Probably not: for though Domitian did not call himself TR P on his coins until after the meeting of his tribunician assembly on 30 Sept. 81, nevertheless when he died on 18 Sept. 96, he had already begun striking coins calling himself TR P XVI. So he must have considered his tribunician day to be his dies imperii, 14 Sept., four days before his assassination, not the anniversary of his tribunican assembly two weeks later on 30 Sept. A simple explanation comes to mind: when confirming Domitian's TR P for the first time on 30 Sept. 81, his tribunician assembly will have backdated his full legal assumption of that power to his dies imperii, in order to retroactively legalize any official actions that he might have carried out in the meantime that might technically have required him to have the tribunician power. So his dies imperii became his fully legal tribunician day.

[curtislclay]

I said the seated Concordia sestertius of Verus with TR P may not have appeared on the market in the last 20 years, but now I note that benito posted such a coin on Forvm in Nov. 2012, his picture repeated below.

The obv. die appears to be the same as that of the Two Emperors clasping hands sestertius that I show above from CoinArchives. So here is another die link between Verus' first two issues, without TR P on the one hand, with TR P on the other.

[benito]

An interesting coin. Some sadistic individual gave it a 0 vote - Buaaahhhh
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-90313

[HELEN S]

  I am sad to see this Benito I know this is up to an individual to mark it as they see fit but there is no way this coin deserves such a pathetic mark. It would probably be better if this member didn't vote at all if they are not going to appraise the coin and mark it correctly, Sad sad who ever you are.

[curtislclay]

And here is another CONCORD AVG TR P XV COS III sestertius of Marcus Aurelius, the third that I have seen appearing in the last 20 years if I am not forgetting others, this one in poor condition but unique for having a left facing portrait, shown by Homer on Numismatik-Café in March 2011, cost him 30 euros at a coin show!

[Rupert]

Yes, this is me again, with my old soft spot for low-grade rarities (Homer J. Simpson and Homer, respectively, are my names on the German and Austrian boards, since "Rupert" was already taken there). And now I have another, slightly better, coin to show in this interesting thread - just arrived yesterday.

Sestertius, Lucius Verus, 161 AD
Obv. IMP CAES L AUREL VERUS AUG
Bare-headed, cuirassed bust right
Rev. COS - II, SC in ex.
Two emperors seated left on curule chairs on platform, their right hands extended; behind them, an officer or lictor standing, another man in front of the platform
32 mm, 20.38 g, die axis 11 o'clock
RIC 1299 var.

RIC's description is puzzling; it says "...; behind, officer standing" (but no mention of a man in front). The RIC illustration, however, does show the man in front of the platform, but no officer. The previous owner of my RIC vol. III has noted a coin from a 1977 auction with obv. laureate and cuirassed bust, rev. with man in front of the platform, but does not say whether the officer behind the emperors is there too. Anyhow, there seem to be a few variants of this rare type. These early coinages of new emperors, before everything was running smoothly, are a very interesting subject!

Rupert

[curtislclay]

Two coincidences:

1. Rupert's new coin is from the same obverse die as mine illustrated above with rev. Concordia seated, which was the occasion of this thread.

2. I myself just purchased a bust variety of Rupert's coin, from the same reverse die as his but a different, laureate, obverse die, ex Roma Numismatics E17, 25 April 2015, lot 747, see the firm's picture below!

This is a new variety of this interesting rev. type, adding a second lictor on the platform behind the emperor in the foreground.

Previously the type had just been known with only one lictor standing before the platform, the type I illustrate above with legend TR POT COS II, from my collection. RIC 1299's description of this type contains a translation error: Cohen 64 says the lictor stands before (devant) the platform, which RIC mistranslates as "behind, officer standing". As RIC's picture shows, pl. xiii, 35, the lictor does indeed stand on the ground at the left of the type. The BM coin that RIC illustrates is the very specimen that Cohen was describing, citing the London collection: it is BMC 1071A, pl. 75.6, acquired by the BM from the Blacas collection in 1867. I have already referred to this coin several times above; it is the only sestertius of L. Verus without TR P in the BM collection.

The second lictor on the platform in the new type is easy to explain. A lictor stands in exactly the same position behind the emperor seated on a platform in many largesse scene types.  Verus' type commemorates not a largesse, but the joint consulship that Marcus and Verus had entered into on 1 January 161. Antoninus Pius had struck a similar type, commemorating his joint consulship with Marcus Caesar of 1 January 140. In Antoninus' type there were two lictors, though the second one was not on the platform, but on the ground to the right: see the second picture below.

The same type commemorating Marcus and Verus' joint consulship was of course also struck on sestertii of Marcus, BMC 843 (not illustrated), with one lictor before the platform. One has to wonder whether the variant type with two lictors remains to be discovered for him too.

I typed the word "lictor" eight times in the above text, and now a ninth time here. Each time Spellcheck wanted to "correct" the spelling to "lector"!

[curtislclay]

Here is one of the largesse scene types I meant, with a lictor in tunic and shouldering his fasces, his left leg straight but his right leg bent, standing behind the seated emperor on the platform, exactly like the second lictor in the new type of Lucius Verus.

Here the togate figure on the left is of course not a lictor but the recipient, holding out his toga to receive his gift from Liberalitas standing on the platform.

[quadrans]

Ohhh very nice coin..
 Q.

[curtislclay]

Ohhh very nice coin..

The two Pius sestertii are from CoinArchives Pro. I couldn't afford such coins!

[curtislclay]

The previous owner of my RIC vol. III has noted a coin from a 1977 auction with obv. laureate and cuirassed bust, rev. with man in front of the platform, but does not say whether the officer behind the emperors is there too.

What 1977 auction was that?

I know it will just be abbreviated: I think my RIC IV.2 is from the same previous owner, with similar notations of auction appearances for virtually every coin!

[Rupert]

Did you buy that RIC at a Hirsch auction in the nineties? This is where I got my vol. 1,2,3,6&8, and these have those pencil notes. The sale is abbreviated as "S 11.77".

Rupert

[curtislclay]

Sternberg VII, 24-25 Nov. 1977, lot 669: the new variant with two lictors, from the same die pair as my specimen!

The description notes that it is an unpublished variant. This coin is even in our photofile, I had neglected to check. It was VF, lump of encrustation on rev. not affecting any important details, sold for SF 2900.

Yes, I got my present RIC IV.2 in late 1990s, to replace my original copy lost to Columbian bag-snatchers in New York City.

What dedication and time that must have required, to write in so many auction appearances in so many RIC volumes!

[curtislclay]

Bronze coins of Lucius without TR P in 161 are considerably rarer than the denarii. The one halfway obtainable type is the sestertius with CONCORD AVGVSTOR COS II, Marcus and Lucius clasping right hands. BMC lacks that coin, but cites Cohen 24 and in a footnote describes a number of bust and legend variants from sale catalogues. CoinArchives Pro contains two or three specimens, including the one shown below.

Otherwise, BMC 1071A, pl. 75.6, has just one very rare sestertius of this issue, COS II, Marcus and Lucius as consuls of 161 seated on a platform, with a lictor standing on the ground before them; and BMC cites from Cohen 62 and 68 a sestertius and a dupondius with another very rare type, COS II, togate emperor standing l. holding globe. A type not in BMC or Cohen is FEL TEM COS II, Felicitas standing: Szaivert in his MIR volume cites two such sestertii, from Zwettl and a Kress catalogue of 1963; and I obtained a similar dupondius from Pagane in 2003.

Further to the type of Lucius Verus without TR P, rev. COS II, Togate emperor standing l. holding globe: Cohen 63 cites a sestertius of this type in Paris, with bare-headed, cuirassed bust r., ridiculously calling it "common", when in fact it is very rare; and Cohen 68 records a dupondius, with radiate, draped, cuirassed bust right, citing the de Moustier collection, though it is not in Hoffmann's de Moustier sale catalogue of 1872.

Recently another specimen of this Emperor-standing sestertius of Verus turned up, possibly only the second specimen recorded, and with a new and unusual bust type: bare-headed, cuirassed bust left, seen from front, with fold of cloak on r. shoulder. See Solidus E23, Auex, 13 Jan. 2018, lot 492, 24.85g, dealer's picture below.

Rupert's bust-left sestertius of Marcus Aurelius in 161 (see above) was a surprise, for I believe it is the only bust-left sestertius of Marcus as emperor so far recorded, though bust left is attested on some of Marcus' sestertii as Caesar under Antoninus Pius. Now we have a bust-left sestertius of Verus too in 161, which as far as I know is similarly the first bust-left sestertius recorded for him in any year of his reign. Maybe we would know other specimens of one or both of these coins, however, if Strack had been able to publish his fourth volume covering the coinage of 161-192 AD!

This Emperor-standing type seems to have been one of the earliest types of the joint reign of Marcus and Verus, struck only right after their accession in March 161, and not continued later in the year. So for Verus, the type occurs only with the rev. legend COS II, not with the later TR P COS II.

Similarly on bronze coins of Marcus, the Emperor-standing type, with legend TR P XV COS III S C, occurs only with Marcus' rare earlier obv. legend without P M, not with his commoner later legend adding P M. BM 846 has such a dupondius of Marcus (not illustrated in BMC), and Cohen 786 records such an As, citing the coin dealer Rollin. Doubtless the Emperor-standing type was also struck on sestertii of Marcus with no P M in his obv. legend, matching the similar sestertii of Lucius Verus with rev. legend COS II S C, though no sestertii of Marcus with this type seem to be known, at least are not recorded by BMC or Cohen. Denarii of Marcus with this Emperor-standing type also occur, but we cannot be sure that they were struck only soon after March 161, for there was no succession of obv. legends on his denarii of this year as on his bronze coins: all of Marcus' denarii of 161 omit P M, not just a small first issue.

[mauseus]

Hi,

It has been a while since I posted this in the discussion threads but the coin has been in my galleries since February 2007 so I thought I would append it to the thread as it is a very relevent piece:

Lucius Verus 161-9 AD
AE sestertius
Obv "IMP CAES L AVREL VERVS AVG"
Draped and cuirassed bust right
Rev "COS II SC"
Aurelius and Verus seated left on a rostrum, attendant standing left below
Rome mint
RIC 1299 (plate XIII, no. 255 same dies), BMC 1071a, C 64

Regards,

Mauseus

[curtislclay]

A handsome example of this rare and interesting coin!

[curtislclay]

A second specimen of Marcus' TR POT XV Togate Emperor standing dupondius was recently sold by Savoca, Blue E8, EMAX, 15 July 2018, lot 1017, see dealer's picture below.

Apparently from the same dies as BM 846, judging from the museum's online picture. This second specimen, though well worn, is nevertheless a lot better than the BM's, which is poor.