In search of Auctoritas et Maiestas – the Flavian Dynasty and Religions
Vespasian and his sons were forced to create their own style of politics, and, in search of auctoritas and maiestas, they could not neglect the realm of religion. We should bear in mind that in the Roman world, religion was an integral and indispensable component of social and po- litical life. For these reasons, these representatives of the Roman Imperial Dynasty, just like their predecessors and successors, successfully used different forms of activity surpassing the narrow interpretation of the domain of religio, including massive building programmes, monetary policy or even poetry, to express devotion and respect for mores maiorum as well as to confi rm the legal- ity of their power by presenting the divine approval of their political strength. It seems legitimate to acknowledge that the Flavian era did not bring revolutionary changes in traditional religion. This clearly shows that the new dynasty was perfectly aware that one of the aspects of a well-functioning Rome was preservation of the ancestors' customs and a belief in divine protection which could ensure safety, strength and belief in the unity of the Empire.
The Symbolism of Minerva on the Coins of Domitianus
I t is particularly hard to evaluate Domitianus both as a ruler and as an individual because literary sources are very slanted. Ancient historians' were prejudiced and put him besides such tyrants as Tiberius, Caligula, or Nero.2 Much of this is being revised now, be it his military exploits or concept of power. Domitianus's coins prove to be a particularly objective and accurately dated source for the latter. Since Domitianus used them for his official propaganda we are now able not only to describe general tendencies in his policy but also to determine its specific stages. The goddess Minerva was his favourite and frequently appears on the coins. She can be seen on bronze coins minted in Rome in 81-82. Then in 84-96 she was replaced by other godheads or personifications and moved to silver coins exclusively. She always appears in Corinthian helmet and peplos but because of various symbols and positions the images fall into four types. The first shows Minerva advancing right. Her raised right hand holds a javelin and her left a shield (see fig. 1). In the second she looks the same but stands right on a ship. She is accompanied by an owl beside her right foot (see fig. 2). In the third she stands left and holds a spear in her right hand, her left hand akimbo (see fig. 3). In the fourth she stands also to the left. Her extended right hand holds a thunderbolt, her left a spear and behind her feet there is a round shield^ (see fig. 4.). According to H. Mattingly each Image shows Minerva in a different role. She is the goddess of war, the goddess of the Roman fleet and armed forces, then a goddess of a niore peaceful nature, and Jupi ter ' s vicegerent, respectively.^ This view can be argued. The first type was introduced by Claudius^ (see fig. 5). Minerva was then regarded as " suitable patroness for an Emperor who was scholar as well as soldier".6 This issue was continued by Titus (see fig. 6 ) a n d might have been an example for his silver coins to follow.« These, however, carried a Minerva with an owl (see fig. 7) and here she is seen as a " child of Jupiter and his vicegerent
On the Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria
It is with considerable reluctance that I offer a few comments on the possible significance of the Flavian reliefs discovered between 1937 and 1939 close by the Palazzo della Cancelleria in Rome. For the interpretation of monuments such as these is largely subjective; and, in a matter on which any student may claim as good a right to his own opinion as any other, the use of space in this Journal to make suggestions which few may think convincing needs special justification. That justification must be found in the encouragement to ventilate the ideas which follow (ideas first aired before the Anglo-Swedish Classical Conference at Lund in August, 1947) given me by various friends—particularly Dr. Arvid Andrén, Professors Axel Boëthius and Einar Gjerstad, Dr. P. G. Hamberg, and Professors A. D. Nock and A. W. Persson. None of these gentlemen should be assumed to agree with any of my conclusions, but to all of them my hearty thanks for useful discussion are due and are hereby offered. Furthermore, it must be made plain that these remarks are not intended even to touch on the problems connected with the development of Roman art in the Flavian age to the evidence for which these friezes are a most notable addition. They are confined to the question, What are the reliefs about ?