"Good Emperors" and Emperors of the Third Century

"Good Emperors" and Emperors of the Third CenturyAuthor(s): Sviatoslav DmitrievSource: Hermes, 132. Jahrg., H. 2 (2004), pp. 211-224Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477597 .

Accessed: 17/11/2013 16:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.61.13.133 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 16:20:43 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477597?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


"GOOD EMPERORS" AND EMPERORS OF THE THIRD CENTURY

The short reign of Decius was marked by a series of "consecration coins" bearing images of the deified emperors: Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Commodus, Septimius Severus, and Severus Alexander.I Attempts to interpret consecratio as an act of the dedicator and, therefore, to disconnect it from the decisions of the senate, have relied mostly on evidence from pre-Trajan imperial history.2 But evidence from the first century is unambiguous regarding the decisive role of the senate in the consecratio of emperors and members of their families.3 Sources from the second and third centuries likewise leave no doubts that consecratio and, therefore, "consecration coins" were to be authorized by the senate, irrespective of who initiated the deification.4

Because deification reflected the senate's attitude toward the late emperor, Decius' coins might have been intended to appease the senate. But his treatment of

All dates are A.D. In addition to standard abbreviations, the following ones have been used in this paper: RIC = ed. H. MATrINGLY et al., The Roman Imperial Coinage, London 1923ff; Paneg. = ed. R. A. B. MINORS et al., In praise of later Roman emperors. The Panegyrici Latini, Berkeley 1994.

I RIC IV.3, pp. 117-118, 130-132. M. R. ALFOLDI, The Consecration Coins of the Third Century, AArchHung 4, 1955, 68-69 and P. N. SCHULTEN, Die Typologie der romischen Kon- sekrationspragungen, Frankfurt 1979, 118-122 attributed these coins to Trebonianus Gallus. The choice between Decius and Gallus changes very little in the argument of this article; I will be referring to these coins as those of Decius, which is the majority opinion.

2 For example, W. KIERDORF, 'Funus' und 'Consecratio'. Zu Terminologie und Ablauf der romischen Kaiserapotheose, Chiron 16, 1986, 43-69, esp. 47-49, 50; M. CLAUSS, Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im romischen Reich, Stuttgart and Leipzig 1999, 358, 362-363; C. MOTSCH- MANN, Die Religionspolitik Marc Aurels, Stuttgart 2002, 83 (with n. 231).

3 e. g. Augustus: Tac. Ann. 1.10.7-8. Livia: Tac. Ann. 5.1.4, 5.2.1; Suet. Tib. 51.2; D.C. 58.2.1. Claudius: Tac. Ann. 12.69.2-3; Suet. Claud. 45.2, Nero 9.1. See already the consecratio of Julius Caesar by Octavian (Augustus) in 42 B.C.: CIL IX 2628. Cf. Caligulas demand that Tiberius should receive from the senate the same honors as Augustus: D.C. 59.3.7. See in general S. G. MACCORMACK, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 1981, 98, 103 and I. GRADEL, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford 2002, 261-271.

4 See esp. Eus. 2.2, Tert. Apol. 5.1 and the discussion by G. BONAMENTE, II Senato e l'apoteosi degli imperatori da Augusto e Teodosio il grande, ed. K. ROSEN, Macht und Kultur im Rom der Kaiserzeit, Bonn 1994, 146. See also, for example, KIERDORF, 'Funus' und 'Consecratio' (as in n. 2), 56-61 for the Julio-Claudians; HA Hadr. 6.1 (Trajan), 27.1 (Hadrian), Ant. 6.7 (the Elder Faustina), Marc. 26.5 and 7 (the Younger Faustina).



212 SVIATOSLAV DMITRIEV

the senate was hardly one of respect.5 We do not know for certain if he was deified by the senate after his death or if he was subject to a "damnation of memory." The latter seems unlikely because, first, as has been observed by many, the next emperor, Trebonianus Gallus, sought to legitimate his power by making the younger son of the late Decius, Hostilianus, his junior partner.6 And, second, erasures of Decius' name in some inscriptions could have been made on orders of later rulers, as had happened to some other emperors.7 The reason for Decius' "consecration coins" should be sought elsewhere. Some have interpreted these coins as either a part of Decius' overall religious policy or as a reflection of his dynastic preten- sions.8 It could be both: neither of these opinions can be proved with certainty.

The consecratio practice has been examined in connection with the apotheoses of Roman emperors. Therefore, some studies on "consecration coins" go as far back as the reign of Augustus.9 But these coins appeared only much later and concerned originally only members of the imperial family, such as Trajan's wife Plotina, his father Marcus Ulpius Traianus, his sister Marciana, and her daughter Matidia.10

5 For example, K. ERIM and J. REYNOLDS, A Letter of Gordian III from Aphrodisias in Caria, JRS 59, 1969, 57 n. 12 contrasted the letter of Gordian to Aphrodisias (dated to 238 or after, with reference to Syll.3 888) with that of Decius to the same city (MAMA VIII 424), in which the senate was not mentioned at all.

6 This idea has been expressed by W. KUBITSCHEK, Das Todesdatum des Kaisers Decius, NumZeit 41, 1908, 76-77; cf. Eutr. 9.4: Decius and his son as deified. For Hostilianus as the junior partner of Trebonianus Gallus: H. MAlTINGLY, The Reigns of Trebonianus Gallus and Volusian and Aemilian, NC 6th ser., 6, 1946, 38-39 (on coins); J. REYNOLDS, Aphrodisias and Rome, London 1982, 142. References to Hostilianus as princeps iuventutis probably belong to this period: CIL II 3735-3736 (249/25 1), VI. 1, 1 102 (251?).

7 See L. PETERSON, P!R2 M 520 (p. 265); C. L. BABCOCK, An inscription of Trajan Decius from Cosa, AJP 83, 1962, 155-156. For such inscriptions, see, for example, KUBITSCHEK, Das Todesdatum (as in n. 6), 75-77; L. PETERSON, PIR2 M 520 (pp. 264-265); AE 1973.235 (Cosa, early 251); REYNOLDS, Aphrodisias and Rome (as in n. 6), no. 25 (c. mid-250s); J. B. BRUSIN,

Inscriptiones Aquileiae, vol. I, Udine 1991, ad no. 326. Cf. a similar treatment of inscriptions that bore the name of Severus Alexander: W. THEILE, De Severo Alexandro Imperatore, Berlin 1909, 112-128.

8 For example, H. MATrINGLY, RIC IV.3 (1949) p. 118 and The Coins of the 'Divi', issued by Trajan Decius, NC 6th ser., 9, 1949, 79-82; R. T. SAUNDERS, A Biography of the Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 270-275). Diss., University of Cincinnati 1991, 332; BONAMENTE, I1 Senato e l'apoteosi (as in n. 4), 160; H. A. POHLSANDER, The Religious Policy of Decius, ANRW 11 16.2, 1986, 183 1; R. SELINGER, Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Decius. Anatomie einer Christenver- folgung, Frankfurt a. M. 1994, 25.

9 For example, SCHULTEN, Typologie (as in n. 1), 11, 16-18. Cf. E. BICKERMANN, Die rdmische Kaiserapotheose, Archiv fur Religionswissenschaft 27, 1929, 1 n. 2: consecratio on Roman tessarae from 42.

10 Plotina: RIC 11, p. 298; Trajan's father: pp. 261, 301 with the editorial commentary on pp. 242-243; Marciana: pp. 299-300; Matidia: pp. 300, 390. Cf. KIERDORF, 'Funus' und 'Consecra- tio' (as in n. 2), 66 who thought that such coins for Marciana were issued somewhat earlier than those for Trajan the Elder.



"Good Emperors" and Emperors of the Third Century 213

"Consecration coins" were then issued in memory of imperial wives and other female members of the imperial family by Hadrian (Sabina), Antoninus Pius (Faustina), Marcus Aurelius (Faustina the Junior), Caracalla (Julia), Alexander (Julia, Maesa), Maximinus (Paulina), and Valenan (Mariniana)."I

Further such coins were issued for Lucius Verus (not the predecessor but the co- ruler of Marcus Aurelius), who died in 169,12 the two sons of Gallienus, and Quintillus, who hardly received this honor from the next Roman emperor Aure- lian.'3 The significance of "consecration coins," therefore, was not limited to establishing a liaison between the late emperor and the new, which helped the latter to legitimate his rule.14 Only gradually was the practice of "consecration coins" extended to imperial predecessors: first by Antoninus Pius (for Hadrian), then by Marcus Aurelius (for Antoninus), Commodus (for Marcus Aurelius), Septimius Severus (for Pertinax and Commodus), Caracalla (for Septimius), Severus Alexan- der (for Caracalla), Gallienus (for Valerian), and Quintillus (for Claudius).'5

However, the context of Decius' "consecration coins" appears to have been even broader than this. His coins were issued not for his immediate predecessor (we do not see such coins for Maximinus or the Gordians or Philip) but for several emperors from different dynasties and only those who had been deified by the senate. None of these emperors had, or was claimed by Decius to have had, any relation to him. The explanation for Decius' "consecration coins" should be sought in the second century, which produced a string of adopted emperors with no blood relation to each other. At that time, legitimating the position of a new emperor,'6 and his posthumous divinisation, was achieved by claiming that his virtues supposedly matched those of his predecessor.'7 Trajan marked the begin-

" I Sabina: RIC II, pp. 390, 479. Faustina: RIC III, pp. 72-73, 95, 164, 168. Faustina Junior: pp. 273, 349-350. Julia: RIC IV.], pp. 275, 313 (Caracalla, 217), IV.2, p. 127 (Severus Alexan- der). Maesa: pp. 101, 127. Paulina: p. 153. Mariniana: RIC V.1, pp. 64-65.

12 RIC III, pp. 262, 333. 13 e. g. RIC V.1, pp. 116-121 (Valerian II), 124 (Saloninus), 240, 243 (Quintillus); cf. D.C.

74.17.4 on Pertinax. 14 This interpretation has been offered by MOTSCHMANN, Religionspolitik (as in n. 2), 78-79.

Nor did consecratio always serve to legitimate the rule of the new emperor; cf. the murder and deification of Geta by Caracalla in HA Get. 2.8-9 (sit divus, dum non sit vivus).

15 Antoninus for Hadrian: RIC II, p. 385 (139). Marcus for Antoninus: RIC III, pp. 247, 314- 315. Commodus for Marcus Aurelius: RIC III, pp. 397-398, 441. Septimius for Pertinax: RIC IV.I, pp. 94 (193/194), 181 (193), for Commodus: 99 (196), 191 (196/197); see also RIC III, p. 397. Caracalla for Septimius: RIC IV. 1, pp. 239, 292 (21 1). Alexander for Caracalla: RIC IV.2, p. 128. Gallienus for Valerian: RIC V. 1, pp. 1 8-121; cf. HA Aurel. 8.1. Quintillus for Claudius: pp. 233-237.

16 Cf. e. g. Hadrian's right to rule in P. Giessen 3: JOt davra 5oiXa [8t] &PErllV K4[al xatp6; rrXTv Oroi XaipovTr;, and Aur. Medit. 1.16.1-9 and 6.30.2: Marcus professed to conform to his "divine father" by developing the same virtues as Antoninus Pius.

17 See, for example, G. W. BOWERSOCK, Greek Intellectuals and the Imperial Cult in the Second Century A.D., Le culte des souverains dans l'Empire romain (Fondation Hardt, Entre-




ning of this development by assuming the title optimus princeps as his official cognomen.'8 He acted out of practical considerations: his rule was going to be favorably contrasted with that of his predecessor, Domitian. Hence contemporary reference to Trajan's reign as the time of restoration of the Roman commonwealth and as a "golden age."'9 His practical political stand then received a life of its own: Trajan became the ideal ruler whose reign provided the model for all future emperors, largely because of the many virtues he allegedly possessed.

This stance of Trajan resurrected, among other things, the old Roman philo- sophical opinion (which developed under the Republic) that only virtuous politi- cians were entitled to rule and, eventually to be deified after their life was over.20 Individual rulers were already measuring their virtues against Trajan's in the second century,2' but even more prominently in the third. If the edict on the

tiens XIX), Geneva 1973, 190, 193 who focused on virtues of individual emperors as a stepstone to their posthumous divinisation.

18 For a summary, see R. FREI-STOLBA, Inoffizielle Kaisertitulaturen im I. und 2. Jahrhundert, MH 26, 1969, 21-28.

19 Plin. Pan. 45.2-3 (tu amicos ex optimis, et hercule aequum est esse eos carissimos bono principi, qui invisissimi malo fuerint), 53.3, 76.1-3, 78.3, and Ep. 10.1.2. Cf. Traiano Optimo Augusto: OGI 409.11-14, and 6 "Aptaro; AUrroKp&rop: OGI 677 and Syll.3 825A and 827. See in general A. WALLACE-HADRILL, The Emperor and His Virtues, Historia 30, 1981, 313; T. WHIT-

MARSH, Greek literature and the Roman Empire. The Politics of Imitation, Oxford 2001, 156-167; J. BENNErr, Trajan. Optimus Princeps, Indiana UP. 22001, 205-206.

20 See most prominently in Cic. De re publ. 6.13: the rulers and preservers of cities descend from heaven and return to heaven after their death (in caelo definitum locum .. harum rectores et conservatores hinc profecti huc revertuntur). This interpretation might shed a new light on the emergence of references to Roman emperors as rectores, which we first see after the collapse of the Antonine dynasty, and conservatores, which first appeared on imperial coins starting with Gallienus' sole rule. Such references reflected the situation when emperors found it hard or impossible to legitimate their rule by connecting it to their predecessors. Rector in RIC IV. 1: Didius Julianus, pp. 10 n. [*] (Rector Orbis SC), 13, 15, 17; Septimius, pp. 113 n. 168 (Rector Urbis), 127 (Rector Orbis); Caracalla, pp. 218, 233, 278, 289 (Rector Orbis, with the image of Sol); Geta, p. 314 (with the image of Sol). Conservator in RIC V. 1: Gallienus, pp. 131 (Conser- vator Orbis), 145 (Conservator Pietatis), 146 (Conservator Exercitus); Claudius II, p. 213 (Conservator Pietatis); Tacitus, pp. 328, 340, 345 (Conservator Militum), and even more prominently (including Conservatores Urbis Suae) in the period of the Tetrarchy: RIC VI, p. 699. Cf. HA Marc. 18.2: (after the death of Marcus) certis omnibus quod ad diis commodatus ad deos redisset; Claud. 12.2: (after his death, Claudius) virtutibus suis petiit caelum.

21 Trajan's virtues: J. RRUFUS FEARS, The Cult of Virtues and Roman Imperial Ideology, ANRW 11 17.2, 1981, 910-924. WALLACE-HADRILL, The Emperor and His Virtues (as in n. 19), 313-314 observed that it was from Marcus onwards that the emperor's possession of virtues became a cliche, with reference to Fronto, De Fer. Als. 2.6, p.215 and ILS 374. Such cases refer to virtues of individual emperors, including Trajan (see HA Hadr. 10.2), Antoninus (Aur. Medit. 6.30.2), Marcus (D.C. 72.34.2), Commodus (ILS 400; BMC Emp. IV. 1, clxi), and Pertinax (D.C. 74.5.2); see already in Plin. Ep. 3.18.2 and Pan. 4.1, 63.1. See also HA Hadr. 6.3, but cf. Sev.Al. 65.5. Ammianus (16.5.16) later presented Julian as an example for boni principes.




restitution of the "crown gold" belonged to Severus Alexander, he also claimed descent from Trajan whom, in addition to Marcus Aurelius, he professed to imitate.22 Claudius was said to be more beloved than "Trajan or any of the Antonines" and was venerated as optimus imperator, while Valerian allegedly compared Aurelian to Trajan.23 Trajan was the earliest remembered, and most singled out, of all emperors when Tacitus was acclaimed emperor by the senate.24 Trajan was the earliest of the emperors with whom Probus was compared.25 Private rescripts of Diocletian and Constantine cite Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, and Aurelian.26 It would not be surprising if the life of Trajan opened the collection of imperial biographies that we know as the Historia Augusta.27

This veneration had been extended only to individual emperors, and only those that were publicly acknowledged as predecessors. Each of them left the imperial power to an emperor who now venerated his "divine father." Later dynasties, the Severi and the Gordians tried to legitimate their rule by connecting themselves to the Antonines in many ways: both Septimius and Caracalla claimed descent from Marcus Aurelius (and their remains were deposited in Hadrian's mausoleum), while Elagabalus and Severus Alexander laid claims of having been related to Caracalla.28 Names could be important even when descent could not be faked, or,

22 P. Fay. 20.2-4: O0ev got napiCrrTr TO 3ovXuga toiTo o&U8 6ino6ovtt 1apa&etygahrv ?V ot; Tpatav6v re KcaX MpcpKov woi; 4tairoi3 ipoyo6vox; A15roKpdropa; Si pita'ca 8'

OavVdaat 6tiom 'YCYEVTIIiEVOVU gtReiatat 4e'Xov. The editors, B. P. GRENFELL and A. S. HUNT, dated the edict to "late third or early fourth century" (p. 1 16) or the period from Macrinus to Diocletian, i. e. 218/284 (p. 1 17), or, finally, to the reign of Severus Alexander (pp. 117-118); so also H. SCHOFFEL, Die Erwahnung von Vorgangern in authentischen Zeugnissen Romischer Kaiser. Diss., Heidelberg 1970, 43, 144-145; L. DE BLoIs, The Reign of the emperor Philip the Arabian, Talanta 10-11, 1979, 15; G. ALFOLDY, Die Krise des Romischen Reiches, Stuttgart 1989, 322. Severus Alexander is known to have remitted the "crown gold" only for the city of Rome: HA Sev.Al. 32.5. Reference to Trajan and Marcus as "ancestors" might point to Severus Alexander: he was connected to Marcus through Septimius Severus who claimed to be the brother of Commodus, and to Trajan through a sequence of "adopted emperors"; see ILS 417, 420-422, 424, 431, 446, 448-449 with commentaries ad hoc. Similar to Elagabalus, Severus Alexander presented himself as son of Caracalla, and therefore, as grandson of Septimius Severus: ILS 469 with editorial commentary ad hoc. The idea of comparing emperors both to Trajan and Marcus was borrowed by later writers who were unaware of its practical origin; see e. g. Amm. 30.9.1.

23 HA Claud. 18.4 and RIC V. 1, pp. 233-237. HA Aurel. 1 1.7. 24 HA Tac. 5.1, 8.5. 25 HA Tac. 16.6, Prob. 12.2, 22.4. 26 S. CORCORAN, The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government,

A.D. 284-324, Oxford 1996, 63-64. 27 So K.-H. STUBENRAUCH, Kompositionsprobleme der Historia Augusta (Einleitung - Der

verlorene Anfang). Diss., Gottingen 1982, esp. 82-87. 28 Burial: D.C. 77.15.4 (Septimius), 79.9.1 (Caracalla); cf. 79.24.3 (Julia and Geta). Elaga-




perhaps, precisely for this reason: soldiers called Didius Julianus "Commodus"; Macrinus "proclaimed himself now Severus now Antoninus" and gave the name Antoninus to his son Diadumenianus; the same name was probably appropriated by Gordian I and II, whereas the younger Philip included "Severus" as a part of his official name.29

Connections to imperial "predecessors" could be established in various other ways as well. In one such case, Septimius requested the senate proclaim Julia Domna "the Mother of the Camps" (Mater Castrorum), which has usually been interpreted as an attempt to liken her to Faustina Minor, who received this title from the senate after a request from Marcus Aurelius. But soon after Commodus attained sole rule, he made the senators grant the same title to Crispina. Septimius was thus following an established trend.30 In another such case, having put Pescennius out of the way by 195, Septimius claimed descent from Marcus Aurelius and changed the name of his elder son to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and gave him the title Caesar.31 Having done away with Albinus by 197, Septimius resurrected a good deal of Commodus' coin imagery to present the rule of the

balus: HA Macr. 7.6-8, 8.4, 9.4; Elag. 1.1, 3.1; AE 1964.269 (222), 1978.842 (220 or 221); D.C.

79.32.2-3; Jerom. Chronic. 296 F (p. 214 Helm); Eus. 6.21; H. GESCHE, Die Divinisierung der

romischen Kaiser in ihrer Funktion als Herrschaftslegitimation, Chiron 8, 1978, 387. Alexander: CIL XVI 140 (222), 141 (221/222); ILS 469 (undated); CJ 12.35.4 (undated); D.C. 80.2.2; SCHOFFEL, Erwiihnung (as in n. 22), 38 n. 3.

29 Didius: D.C. 74.12.1; cf. Hdn. 2.6.10: Didius' promise to restore the honors and statues of Commodus and to allow soldiers "as much freedom as they had under Commodus." Macrinus:

HA Macr. 2.1, 3.6. Diadumenianus: HA Macr. 2.5, 3.8, 7.5; Diad. 2.7-8; cf. D.C. 79.11.6:

Macrinus was elected emperor on Severus' birthday, 79.16.2. Gordian I and II: HA Gord. 4.7, 9.5, 17.1. And in general: HA Diad. 6.3-9. The younger Philip: M. PEACHIN, Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284, Amsterdam 1990, 215 no. 108; 216 no. I 1 1; 218 no. 130; 219 no. 136; 220nos. 142, 145; 221 nos. 146, 150.

30 R. TURCAN, Le culte imperial au UIVI siecle, ANRW 11 16.2, 1978, 1010. For Faustina, see e. g. HA Marc. 26.8 and D.C. 72.10.5: the senate proclaimed Faustina "mother of the camps"

because she had accompanied Marcus on campaigns, and CIL XIV 40 and RIC III, pp. 274, 350:

Faustina as Mater Castrorum. This interpretation: J.-P. MARTIN, Providentia Deorum. Recherch- es sur certains aspects religieux du pouvoir imp6rial romain, Rome 1982, 384; A. R. BTRLEY,

Septimius Severus. The African Emperor, Yale UP. 21989, 115-116. See also M. THIRION,

Faustina Augusta, Mater Castrorum, Schweizer Munzblatter 17, Heft 65, 1967, 41-42: 174/175, i. e. while Faustina was still alive, and M. T. BOATWRIGHT, Faustina the Younger, Mater Castro-

rum, ed. R. FREI-STOLBA et al., Les femmes antiques entre sphere privee et sph&re publique. Actes

du Diplome d'Etudes Avancees, Universitds de Lausanne et Neuchatel, Bern 2003, 249-268, esp. 265-266: this title predated the revolt of Avidius Cassius in 175. Crispina: BMC Emp. IV 766 no. 418: Matri C(astrorum) SC (180/183), i. e. soon after Commodus became sole emperor.

31 Descent: D. KIENAST, Romische Kaisertabelle. Grundzuge einer romischen Kaiserchrono- logie, Darmstadt 21996, 156; CLAUSS, Kaiser und Gott (as in n. 2), 152 with reference to RIC IV. 1,

p. 185. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus: Hdn. 3.10.5; HA Sev. 10.3; D.C. 77.1.2; Jord. Rom. p. 36

(MoMM.); Eus. 6.8; IGR IV 566 and 567 (AEZANI). Cf. Oros. 7.17-18.




Severi as traditional.32 It did not matter to Septimius, nor to his successors, that much of this imagery had been developed only recently.

In a similar fashion, the title "most illustrious Caesar" (nobilissimus Caesar), which was first given to Geta in January 198, designated the prince as "born to the purple." Everybody knew that Commodus had been the only such emperor, and the date when Geta received this title re-emphasized the connection of the Severi with the Antonine dynasty.33 This title was then appropriated by Diadumenianus, who was given the name Antoninus, and Severus Alexander, who did not have this name.34 A chain reaction then followed: the title that originally served a very specific purpose was used by later emperors, who gave it to their children, including Maximus and Gordian (III),35 the younger Philip,36 the two sons of Decius,37 the two sons of Gallienus,38 and the two sons of Carus.39 Conscious archaizing was another innovation cloaked as a tradition, as we can see in the case of the Saecular Celebrations administered by Septimius in 204.40

32 See, for example, Septimius' coins which mention him as "imperator for the fourth time" (imp IIII) and therefore date to 194/195, and carry the inscription Apollo Augustus: RIC IV. 1, pp. 96, 135, 184, 186. See pp. 66: "perhaps a borrowing from Commodus," 80: "'Apollo Augustus' is, perhaps, akin to the 'Apollo Palatinus' of Roman coins of Commodus"; cf. J.-L. DESNIER, Septime Severe, rassembleur de l'Orbis Romanus, Collection Latomus 226 (Melanges A la m6moire de Marcel Le Glay), 1994, 762 n. 46: "peut etre une reponse A I'Apollo Sanctus de Pescennius Niger," and P. V. HILL, The Coinage of Septimius Severus and his Family of the Mint of Rome, A.D. 193- 217, London 1964, 17 no. 137: January 195. See also Septimius' coins with the image of Jupiter Conservator: e. g. RIC IV. 1, pp. 68, 104, 107 (c.197), 160 (198/202); cf. D.C. 76.7.4.

33 P. BURETH, Les titulatures imp-riales dans les papyrus, les ostraca et les inscriptions d'Egypte, Paris 1964, 101; ILS 457-459. D. FISHWICK, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West, vol. I, part 2, Leiden 1987, 329-330; KIENAST, Kaisertabelle (as in n. 31), 166: autumn 197(?), but his dies imperii was January 28, 198(?). The latter date was the dies imperii of Trajan: KIENAST,

Kaisertabelle (as in n. 31), 122. The choice of January 28, 198 as Caracalla's official dies imperii (see KIENAST, Kaisertabelle, 162) and Geta's dies imperii was hardly accidental; see J. GREY, 28 janvier 98 - 28 janvier 198, ou le siecle de Antonins, REA 50, 1948, 60-70. Geta did not carry the name Antoninus; references to him as "Antoninus" come as alleged quotations of Septimius' words: HA Sev. 23.3 and Get. 1.5-7.

34 ILS 463-465, 474 (221 or 222). 35 Maximus: ILS 489-491; PEACHIN, Titulature (as in n. 29), 120-143. Gordian: ILS 496;

PEACHIN, Titulature (as in n. 29), 158, 162. 36 e. g. RIC IV.3, pp. 96, 101. BURETH, Les titulatures (as in n. 33), 114. PEACHIN, Titulature

(as in n. 29), 215-216, 220, 222-232. 37 CIL 11 3735-3736 (249/251), VI. 1, 1 102 (251 ?); PEACHIN, Titulature (as in n. 29), 253, 256,

259-264. 38 p. Cornelius Licinius Valerianus: ILS 555; RIC V.1, pp. 117, 120-122. P. Cornelius

Licinius Saloninus: ILS 557; RIC V. 1, p. 127. See also ILS 537, 540; BURETH, Les titulatures (as in n. 33), 118-119; PEACHIN, Titulature (as in n. 29), 358-363.

39 P. MELONI, Il regno di Caro, Numeriano e Carino, Cagliari 1948, 71 n. 45. Carinus: RIC V.2, pp. 156-163; Numerian: pp. 188-189. For both, see BURETH, Les titulatures (as in n. 33), 125-126; PEACHIN, Titulature (as in n. 29), 452-471.

40 J. GAG9, Recherches sur les jeux seculaires, REL 11, 1933, 174-175.




Another way in which later dynasties and emperors legitimated their right to rule was by venerating "good emperors" collectively. This practice also emerged under the Severi.4' Earlier such instances have been surmised though: the coins of the Flavii could have referred to the deified Julio-Claudians, and an allegedly Hadrianic war memorial from Jarrow carried the inscription [Divorum] omnium fil[ius]. But other interpretations of the Flavian coins are possible, while the inscription from Jarrow has been dated to the early third century on the score of its lettering.42 The epitome of Dio Cassius refers to what might have been the veneration of divi Augusti in the reign of Septimius Severus, even though this interpretation cannot be held for granted.43 Early in the third century, Severus Alexander (who himself was deified after his death)44 is said to have listened with great pleasure to praises of Alexander the Great, or "the better emperors of the past," or the "great men of the city of Rome," and praised in verse the lives of the "good emperors."45 This emperor also set up colossal statues of the deified emperors, with all their titles and with columns of bronze containing lists of their exploits, in the forum of Nerva, and similar statues of "foremost men" in the forum of Trajan. His Vita remarks that Severus Alexander followed the example of Augustus, who erected marble statues of the most illustrious men. In the sanctuary of his Lares, Alexander kept "statues of deified emperors - of whom however, only the best had been selected."46 The Feriale Duranum, a fragmented papyrus from Dura Europos dated to 225/227, contained dies natales and dies imperii of the deified emperors.47

Gordian I (Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronius) is said to have written in verses, "while still a boy," an Antoniniad which consisted of the lives of Antoni- nus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, and later to have composed prose eulogies of all

4' Cf., for example, SCHOFFEL, Erwihnung (as in n. 22), 211-221 s. v. "Vorganger." 42 The Flavian coins: A. L. ABAECHERLI, Imperial Symbols on Certain Flavian Coins, CPh 30,

1935, 131-140, esp. 139: "triangular and semicircular symbols placed on sellae which Titus and Domitian struck on aurei and denarii in A.D. 80-81 appear to be symbols of Divus Vespasianus and Diva Domitilla and perhaps of the deified Julio-Claudians"; A. ALFOLDI, Die monarchische Repraisentation im romischen Kaiserreiche, Darmstadt 1980, 254-256. Jarrow: FISCHWICK, Impe- rial Cult (as in n. 33), 313 with notes; cf. FISCHWICK, ibid., n. 32: Septimius' fictitious adoption in the Antonine family gave "his dynasty additional legitimation through a support of an illustrious line of deified emperors."

43 D.C. 77.3.3: ev TaL; OEopiat; 'real; v TXc nakacriq) ipcat irxotiou1vac;. On later reflection, Dio (75.2.1) juxtaposed Septimius with oi ipp,lv ayaOoi a-6'roKparTope;. See also 75.7.4 and 76.3.3.

44 CJ 9.51.6 (an undated letter of Gordian III); cf. 6.50.5. ILS 1315 and 9221. 45 HA Sev.Al. 35.1: "better emperors" (meliorum principum) and 27.8: "good emperors"

(principum bonorum). 46 Colossal statues: HA Sev.Al. 28.6 (deified emperors), 26.5 (illustrious people); cf. 25.8

(colossal statues "in the city"). Deified emperors in the sanctuary of his Lares (29.2): divos principes sed optimos electos.

47 R. 0. FINK, A. S. HOEY, and W. F. SNYDER, The Feriale Duranum, Yale CS 7, 1940, 181- 187.




the Antonines "who had preceded him."48 He most likely wrote such eulogies on his accession to power, thus establishing a refined liaison between his family and the Antonine dynasty. The filial piety of the next emperor legitimated his rule. One only needs to remember Tiberius' honora oratio for the late Augustus and Nero's eulogy for the dead Claudius, which were followed by the deification of Augustus and Claudius respectively, or Septimius' eulogy for Pertinax which was soon followed by Septimius' adoption of the name Pius in 195, i. e. when he first presented himself as son of Marcus.49 But Gordian I's eulogies concerned all the Antonines, precisely because he was not able to connect himself and his family to any one of them in particular.

A letter of Gordian III to Aphrodisias referred to the decisions made about this city by the senate and the "deified emperors." All other emperors were simply left out.50 An altar from Aigai in Cilicia, dated to the reign of Gordian III, was dedicated to this emperor, the two deified Gordians, the emperors of the Severan dynasty, and all divi Augusti.51 Scattered references in the Historia Augusta mention "good emperors" either individually or as groups.52 One such reference is similar to Decius' list of deified emperors:53 Claudius and Aurelian ruled after Decius, of course, and the absence of Commodus from the list in the Historia Augusta finds an easy explanation in the fact that while the Severi and the Gordians needed him to link their families to the Antonine dynasty, this was not a concern for emperors of the mid-third century.

48 HA Gord. 3.3, 4.7: scripsit et laudes soluta oratione omnium Antoninorum qui ante eum fuerunt.

49 Tac. Ann. 1.10.7-8; Suet. Nero 9: elatum laudavit et consecravit. A laudatio funebris certainly did not make itself a part of the consecratio procedure: MACCORMACK, Art and Ceremo- ny (as in n. 3), 93-94. Septimius's eulogy: D.C. 75.5.1, HA Pert. 15.1. Pius: RIC IV. 1, p. 185 with KIENAST, Kaisertabelle (as in n. 31), 156. See in general GESCHE, Divinisierung (as in n. 28), 377- 390, esp. 386-388 for Septimius, Macrinus, and Elagabalus.

50 ERIM and REYNOLDS, Letter (as in n. 5), 56 = AE 1969.599 = REYNOLDS, Aphrodisias and Rome (as in n. 6), no. 22, 11.4-6.

5I SEG 32, 1312: Akoicpciopt Kaicapt MapKo 'Avvicp rop8tavCq e j3eit iUXCt lkxacrCo 8 1oapXtic ua e4ovoia; Kcat 6eoit Top8tavo;t npoy6vot toi icupiou Au'5oKp&ropo;

rop&avoi xeP(acrroi) Kai t O aeot; 10aa6t; 'AMx v8po ic EetLvilpo Kcat 'Avxoweivv icaK

A6gIvn 1cai Tol;q aCpkanto; icat 'AoAkqxtC uicau Yyeiq ical 6iot; Lpacdlot; (238). 52 e. g. HA Pert. 15.2; Avid. 14.1; Sev.Al. 63.6, 65.1-5; Maximin. 7.3; Max. etBalb. 15.1; IT

6.6: Vespasian, Nerva, Trajan, Antoninus Pius, Pertinax, Septimius Severus; 17.1: Odaenathus; Aurel. 40.1-2, 42.5; Tac. 2.1; Prob. 11.6, 21.1: Probus. See also Elag. 1.2: Augustus, Trajan, Vespasian, Hadrian, Pius, Titus, Marcus; and Pescen. 12.1: Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan, Pius, Marcus. For "evil emperors" (mali principes), see HA Aurel. 42.6, 43.1; Prob. 22.4; cf. Elag. 1.2 and Pescen. 12.1; cf. already Plin. Pan. 53.2-3, 63.1. The words of Pliny, as well as those of Dio (79.17.4) a hundred years later, indicate that "evil emperors" were "tyrants," that is those emperors who ruled not by laws, or, in simple terms, without consulting the senate.

53 HA Aurel. 42.4: optimi principes Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus, Severus Alexander, Claudius, Aurelian.




Decius' coins held neither images of the deified Gordians54 nor those of Caracalla or emperors from the more distant past: Pertinax, Lucius Verus, and Claudius 1.55 But Decius' "consecration coins" did bear the images of Commodus and the first and the last of the Severi, revealing Decius' intentions both to present his reign as directly connected to the Severan dynasty, and by extension to the Antonines, and to leave the period after Severus Alexander out of the picture. At the same time, Decius completely disconnected his rule from any individual emperor or dynasty before him: neither he nor his sons adopted new names; nor did he claim a lineage to any of his imperial predecessors. The legitimacy of the reign of Decius, who did not publicly claim connection to any earlier emperor, was by venerating the "good emperors" collectively, which had already become a tradition, even though the lists of such emperors could differ from case to case.56

Decius' message carried the day and a later biographer found it possible to liken him to "the ancients," i. e. in this case to the emperors of the second century.57 The ideal prototype was certainly the optimus princeps Trajan. Decius' adoption of the name "Trajan" has been explained as "promising an aggressive frontier policy."58 Yet even a quick glance at our sources reveals that for people of the mid-third century, and those who lived later, the figure of Trajan meant more than just military success.59 Decius' adoption of the name "Trajan" coincided chronologically with his "consecration coins": both acclaimed the reign of Decius

54 The deification of Gordian I and II: ILS 496-498, 500; SEG 32, 1312 (238); Hdn. 8.6.3; HA Maximin. 24.2, 26.2 and 5, Max. et Balb. 4.1-3. The deification of Gordian III: HA Gord. 31.3 and 7, 34.3; Eutr. 9.2.3; Amm. 23.7 and 17.

55 The deification of Caracalla: SEG 32, 1312 (238). Pertinax: HA Pert. 14.10-15.1, and on coins in H. COHEN, Description historique des monnaies frapp6es sous l'empire romain, vol. III, Paris and London 21883, 390-391, nos. 6-12 (the consecratio issue). Lucius Verus: HA Marc. 15.3-4, 20.1-2; on coins in COHEN, Description III, 176-177, nos. 53-59 (the consecratio issue). Clauidus I: Suet. Claud. 45 with D. FIsHWICK, CQ 52, 2002, 341-349.

56 Optimi principes were not necessarily boni principes, and the latter were not always identified with optimi principes either: Severus Alexander is said to have kept images only of the best of the deified emperors, and Avidius Cassius allegedly would have made an optimus princeps but not necessarily a "good" one. See HA Sev.Al. 29.2 (see n. 46 above) and Avid. 14.1: had Avidius Cassius gained the throne, he would have made not a merciful and good emperor (clemens et bonus), but a beneficient and excellent one (utilis et optimus); cf. D.C. 72.22.2: (Avidius) avr p Si dptmoo yEyveo, xat owltov dv t; alYroKpatopa ?XEtv EiDEavTo.

57 HA Aurel. 42.6. 58 J. F. DRINKWATER, Messius (RE 9) Quintus Decius, Gaius, OCD 31996, 965; M. CHRISTOL,

L'empire romain du IIIe siecle. Histoire politique, Paris 21997, 122; P. SOUTHERN, The Roman empire from Severus to Constantine, London and New York 2001, 75. Cf. B. GEROV, Zur Identitat des Imperators Decius mit dem Statthalter C. Messius Q. Decius Valerianus, Klio 39, 1961, 225: 250/251. GEROV was eager to connect Decius' adoption of this name with Decius' govemorship in Spain, the native province of Trajan, or with Decius' govemorship of Dacia, i. e. the region which best reminded of Trajan's victories.

59 Cf. Anon. Vales. 60: Theodoric modeled himself on Trajan and (!) Valentinian I.




Trajan as conforming to the glorious Roman past, thus legitimating his right to rule. One of the first proposals of the emperor Tacitus, who reigned some time after Decius, was to erect a temple to divi Augusti, which would host statues of the "good emperors" (principes boni), so that sacrificial cakes might be set before these statues on the birthdays of such emperors, the Parilia (the birthday of Rome), the Kalends of January (the "birthday" of the state: the Kalends of January marked the first day of the official year), and the Day of the Vows (i. e. the day on which vows for the current emperor's health were taken by the officials and the priests).60 The dates are significant, and the message was to be easily understood: the new emperor promised to conform to the standards of the "good emperors" and expected to receive a corresponding treatment in return. However, Tacitus' sug- gestion to build the temple of the "good emperors," which never materialized, was much less publicly visible than the images of such emperors on Decius' coins.

The veneration of "good emperors" started to be played down by Aurelian, whose coins carried inscriptions Sol Dominus Imperii Romani on the obverse, and Aurelianus Aug(ustus) Cons(ecravit) with the image of Aurelian sacrificing on an altar on the reverse. The usual interpretations of such coins have been that Aurelian established Sol as the supreme deity of the state and/or dedicated the temple of Sol, probably in person.61 One can view them as Aurelian's "consecration coins," which disconnected his rule from any predecessors, either individuals or as a group. Aurelian's power came from a divinity, and was thus divine itself. His coins that show Sol giving him a globe have been interpreted as "Solar investiture,"62 an analogy, it seems, to "Jovian investiture." Such has been the explanation of coins that depict Jupiter giving a globe to some emperors.63 The first examples of this imagery emerged in 117 on the coins of Hadrian which show him receiving a globe from Trajan or from Jupiter, and Hadrian and Trajan holding a globe between them.64 Such coins refer to Hadrian as Optimus, thus revealing that the recipient of the globe was conjoined with the one who entrust- ed it to him. Aurelian's coins referred to him as being "bom God and Master"

60 HA Tac. 9.5 (divorum templumfieri iussit, in quo essent statuae principum bonorum). 61 RIC V. 1, p. 301. Interpretations: G. H. HALBERGHE, Le culte de Deus Sol Invictus a Rome

au 3c si&cle apres J.C., ANRW II 17.4, 1984, 2196-2197; A. WATSON, Aurelian and the Third Century, London and New York 1999, 191. HA Aurel. 1.3: Templum Solis ab Aureliano principe consecratum.

62 RIC V.1, pp. 296-297, 305. For example, R. GOBL, Die Munzpragung des Kaisers Aurelianus, Vienna 1993, 59-60: early 274; E. ESTIOT, Aureliana, RN 1995, 82: late 274; WATSON, Aurelian (as in n. 61), 190: "Solar investiture" of the inspiration for the emperor's valor. For the globe as meaning the "symbol of power," see T. HOLSCHER, Victoria Romana, Mainz a. R. 1967, 41-47.

63 Septimius Severus: RIC IV. 1, p. 95 (194) with TURCAN, Le culte (as in n. 30), 1028: "il s'agit bien d'une investiture divine," 1029: "l'investiture jovienne;" Gallienus: RIC V.1, p. 103 (255/256). SAUNDERS, A Biography (as in n. 8), 333.

64 Trajan: RIC II, p. 405. Trajan and Hadrian: p. 338. Jupiter: p. 353.




(Deus et Dominus Natus). Later coins of Probus and Carus would carry similar references.65 The fact that Aurelian was the first emperor to wear a diadem ("with a star": the symbol of divine predestination, which we see on coins over heads of earlier emperors) in public, with jeweled and gilded robes, comes as no sur- prise.66 As another reflection of this situation, Peter the Patrician tells us that Aurelian once subdued a mutiny of his troops by declaring that only the god had the authority to invest emperors with purple and establish the limits of their rule.67 Now that Aurelian himself was dominus et deus natus, his very existence justified his rule.

Conclusion

When the "crisis of the third century," with its quick succession of many emperors who had no connection to each other, sharpened the problem of legitimating imperial power, two solutions were already at hand. Some emperors attempted to legitimate their rule by offering to comply with the moral standards, or virtues, of the "good emperors." This development originated in the second century, when adopted emperors venerated their "divine fathers." The veneration of the "good emperors" as a group emerged in the early third century and adopted different forms, such as setting up their statues (Severus Alexander), issuing their "consecration coins" (Decius), or proposing to build a temple for them (Tacitus). The same idea survived into later times: the image of Trajan was probably in the minds of those people who praised Claudius II as optimus imperator on coins from the time of Constantine the Great.68 Constantine himself excelled over all other Divi, being in this way incorporated into their number.69 In the mid-fourth century the Fasti Philocali referred to the birthdays of seven- teen most venerated Roman emperors of all those from Augustus to Constan- tine.70 Their number had obviously changed as time went on, but the approach

65 e. g. RIC V. 1, p. 299: Obv.: Deo et Domino Nato Aureliano Aug(usto); Rev.: Soli lnvicto. Cf. Deo et Domino Probo Invicto Aug(usto): RIC V.2, p. 114. Deo et Domino Caro Aug(usto): pp. 125, 130, 133, 145-146. Deo et Domino Caro lnvic(to) Aug(usto): pp. 130, 133, 136.

66 Aur.Vict. epit. 35.5; the star: Malal. 12.30. Cf. RIC III, pp. 271, 346; both have the same Obv.: Faustina Augusta, and Rev.: "Pulvinar on which are Commodus and Antoninus; each with star over his head."

67 FHG IV, p. 197, no. 10.6 with a brief review by B. SAYLOR RoDCERS, Divine Insinuation in the Panegyrici Latini, Historia 36, 1986, 70 n. 2. Cf. D.C. 72.3.4.

68 e. g. RIC V. 1, pp. 233-237: Divo Claudio Optimo Imp(eratori). 69 e. g. Paneg. 7(6).14.5: Haec est tua praeter omnes divos propria immortalitas quam

videmus (307). 70 CIL 12, pp. 254-266: Augustus, Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Lucius Verus,

Pertinax, Septimius, Alexander, Gordian III, Claudius, Aurelian, Probus, Constantius I, Constan- tine 1 (354).




remained the same: any of the "good emperors" could be claimed as "ancestor" by his virtuous successors.7'

Although this was an ideal way of legitimating imperial power, compliance with moral standards of the "good emperors" still put obligations on the ruler: a virtuous emperor could not go beyond certain limits. The veneration of the "good emperors" also implied a certain moral affinity with them which not every emperor in the third century could claim or allow himself. Some emperors, therefore, sought to legitimate their power by its divine nature. The roots of this approach also went into the past: the Julio-Claudians identified themselves with various deities;72 Domitian preferred to be addressed as deus et dominus;73 the optimus princeps Trajan was presented as having received his power from Jupi- ter,74 and, as we have seen, Hadrian was depicted as receiving the globe either from his "divine father" or from Jupiter. In a similar fashion, coins of Septimius from 194 showed him receiving a globe from Jupiter or clasping right hands with Jupiter.75 The other side of the coin was that if the emperor proved unworthy, it was Jupiter who, as the supreme deity, was invoked to rule his people.76

The third century saw the convergence of the two trends, which produced a mixture of innovations and traditions, or what was then presented as tradition. Assertions of personal virtue and personal divinity were not mutually exclusive in the third century.77 The same emperor could claim both. For example, Probus,

71 e. g. CJ 2.13.1: Divus Claudius consultissimus princeps parens noster (Diocletian, Max- imian, and the Caesars, 293), 5.75.5: quod auctore divo Trajano parente nostro factum est (Diocletian, 294), 11.59.1: divus Aurelianus parens noster (Constantine I).

72 One certainly should distinguish between such identification, and the identification of the defunct private individuals with deities; H. WREDE, Consecratio in formam deorum. Vergottlichte Privatpersonen in der romischen Kaiserzeit, Mainz a. R. 1981, esp. 105-124. For the difference between "res religiosa" and "res sacra," see L. KOEP, Consecratio I (allgemein), Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum, vol. III, Stuttgart 1957, 269-270.

73 Suet. Dom. 13.2. Cf. L. HoMo, Essai sur le r6gne de l'empereur Aurelien: 270-275, Paris 1904, 192: neither word made a part of his official titulature.

74 e. g. Dio Chrys. 1.73: "Lady Royalty" is child of King Zeus; Plin. Pan. 8.1: ante pulvinar lovis optimi maximi adoptio perata est and 3: hanc imperator Nerva in gremio lovis collocarat, cum repente solito maior et augustior advocata contione hominum deorumque te filium sibi adsumpsit. See J. BEAUJEU, La religion romaine a l'apog6e de l'empire, vol. I, Paris 1955, 71-80; BOWERSOCK, Greek Intellectuals (as in n. 17), 193; J. RuFus FEARS, Jupiter and Roman Imperial Ideology, ANRW II 17.1, 1981, 80-85.

75 e. g. RIC IV.1, p. 95 (194). Coins with Septimius' image of the same height as, and clasping hands with Jupiter: HILL, Coinage (as in n. 32), 16 no. 74 ("Special issue: Battle of Cyzicus") = BMC Emp. V.2, p. 31 no. 67 (194). Cf. D.C. 77.9.4.

76 e. g. D.C. 79.7.4: a spirit in the appearance of a man claimed Caracalla dead and Jupiter emperor, and 79.20.1-2: the crowd, which despised Macrinus and his son, called upon Jupiter to be their leader.

77 Cf. e. g. Plin. Pan. 2: Domitian, who claimed veneration as deus and numen, is contrasted with Trajan who rules due to his virtue; see esp. 2.7: Divinitatem principis nostri, an humanitatem




who combined all virtues "to a surpassing degree" and who was made emperor by the vote of "all good men," also put Deus et Dominus Natus on his coins;78 Diocletian and Maximian, who not only carried the names of Jupiter and Hercules respectively but also embodied these deities, were divine, first of all, because of their virtue;79 and Constantine, who was destined to rule by his birth, exceeded all "good emperors" in his virtues.80 But the most important component of the public image of Roman emperors in the third century was their divine origin which made it unnecessary, though still quite desirable, to legitimate their power by connecting it in any way to an earlier ruler or a dynasty or "good emperors" as a group.81 The veneration of the "good emperors," which emerged in the third century, served, therefore, as a transition from the earlier veneration of deified individual predecessors to the later claim of the divine origin of the imperial power.

Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana SVIATOSLAv DMITRIEV

temperamentiam facilitatem, ut amor et gaudium tulit, celebrari universi solemus? Cf. D.C.

72.35.2: Marcus Aurelius owed his advancement to his natural qualities, first of all his virtue. 78 HA Tac. 16.6; for his coins, see n. 65 above. 79 Names: e. g. Jerom. Chronic. 307 F (p. 225 HELM): Diocletianus in consortium regni

Herculium Maximianum adsumit. Virtue: e. g. Paneg. 1 1(3).2.3-4 and 10.5 (291). 80 Paneg. 7(6).14.5 (307) and 8(5).2.2 respectively (297?). Cf. 6(7).3.1-4: Constantine was

born to rule: imperium nascendo meruisti (cf. dominus natus on the coins of Aurelian and later

emperors), but he occupied this position by his personal merits (310). 81 For earlier attitudes, see e. g. P. Giessen 3 and Aur. Medit. 1.16.1-9 and 6.30.2 (see n. 16

above).



Documents

"Good Emperors" and Emperors of the Third Century