(Download PDF) Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in The Second Century Ad Christian Niederhuber Full Chapter PDF

Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in the
Second Century AD Christian

Niederhuber
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/roman-imperial-portrait-practice-in-the-second-centur
y-ad-christian-niederhuber/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in the Second Century

AD: Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger Christian.
Niederhuber
https://ebookmass.com/product/roman-imperial-portrait-practice-
in-the-second-century-ad-marcus-aurelius-and-faustina-the-
younger-christian-niederhuber/
Humanism and Empire: The Imperial Ideal in Fourteenth-

Century Italy Alexander Lee
https://ebookmass.com/product/humanism-and-empire-the-imperial-
ideal-in-fourteenth-century-italy-alexander-lee/
Post-Roman Kingdoms: ‘Dark Ages' Gaul & Britain, AD

450–800 1st Edition Raffaele D’Amato
https://ebookmass.com/product/post-roman-kingdoms-dark-ages-gaul-
britain-ad-450-800-1st-edition-raffaele-damato/
Occult Imperium: Arturo Reghini, Roman Traditionalism,

and the Anti-Modern Reaction in Fascist Italy Christian
Giudice
https://ebookmass.com/product/occult-imperium-arturo-reghini-
roman-traditionalism-and-the-anti-modern-reaction-in-fascist-
italy-christian-giudice/
The Roman Emperor and His Court c. 30 BC-c. AD 300:
Volume 2, A Sourcebook Benjamin Kelly
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-roman-emperor-and-his-
court-c-30-bc-c-ad-300-volume-2-a-sourcebook-benjamin-kelly/
Imperial Power, Provincial Government, and the

Emergence of Roman Asia, 133 BCE-14 CE Bradley Jordan
https://ebookmass.com/product/imperial-power-provincial-
government-and-the-emergence-of-roman-asia-133-bce-14-ce-bradley-
jordan/
Projecting Imperial Power: New Nineteenth Century

Emperors and the Public Sphere Helen Watanabe-O'Kelly
https://ebookmass.com/product/projecting-imperial-power-new-
nineteenth-century-emperors-and-the-public-sphere-helen-watanabe-
okelly/
Chronicling Westerners in Nineteenth-Century East Asia:

Lives, Linkages, and Imperial Connections Robert S. G.
Fletcher
https://ebookmass.com/product/chronicling-westerners-in-
nineteenth-century-east-asia-lives-linkages-and-imperial-
connections-robert-s-g-fletcher/
Imperial Ladies of the Ottonian Dynasty: Women and Rule

in Tenth-Century Germany 1st ed. 2018 Edition Phyllis
G. Jestice
https://ebookmass.com/product/imperial-ladies-of-the-ottonian-
dynasty-women-and-rule-in-tenth-century-germany-1st-
ed-2018-edition-phyllis-g-jestice/
OXFORD MONOGRAPHS ON CLASSICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
Edited by
john bennet
john boardman
j. j. coulton
donna kurtz
r. r. r. smith
margareta steinby
OXFORD MONOGRAPHS ON CLASSICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
The series includes self-contained interpretative studies of the
art and archaeology of the ancient Mediterranean world.
Authoritative volumes cover subjects from the Bronze Age to
late antiquity, with concentration on the central periods, areas,
and material categories of the classical Greek and Roman world.
other titles in the series include:

Children in the Hellenistic World
Statues and Representation
Olympia Bobou
The Dodecanese and the Eastern Aegean Islands in Late
Antiquity, ad 300–700
Georgios Deligiannakis
Late Classical and Hellenistic Silver Plate from Macedonia
Eleni Zimi
Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 bc
Rune Frederiksen
Komast Dancers in Archaic Greek Art
Tyler Jo Smith
Roman Theatres
An Architectural Study
Frank Sear
Relief Sculpture of the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus
Brian Cook
Brickstamps of Constantinople
Volume 1: Text
Volume 2: Illustrations
Jonathan Bardill
The Protogeometric Aegean
The Archaeology of the Late Eleventh and Tenth Centuries bc
Irene S. Lemos
Approaches to the Study of Attic Vases
Beazley and Pottier
Philippe Rouet
Chryselephantine Statuary in the Ancient Mediterranean
World
Kenneth D. S. Lapatin
The Late Mannerists in Athenian Vase-Painting
Thomas Mannack
Naukratis
Trade in Archaic Greece
Astrid Möller
Hellenistic Engraved Gems
Dimitris Plantzos
ROMAN IMPERIAL PORTRAIT
PRACTICE IN THE SECOND
CENTURY AD
Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the

Younger
Christian Niederhuber
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the
University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing
worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in
certain other countries
© Christian Niederhuber 2022
The moral rights of the author have been asserted
First Edition published in 2022
Impression: 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in
writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under
terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same
condition on any acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2022930108
ISBN 978–0–19–284565–8
ebook ISBN 978–0–19–266055–8
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192845658.001.0001
Printed in the UK by Bell & Bain Ltd., Glasgow
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website
referenced in this work.
To my parents and Oliver
P R E FA C E
Portraits of Roman emperors and their immediate family members

survive in large numbers on coins and in sculpture. They depend on
now lost centrally defined models. This book, a revised doctoral
thesis submitted to the University of Oxford, examines what these
shared models (portrait types) were for and how they were
disseminated.
This study could not have been written without the help and
support of many friends and colleagues. I would like to thank some
of them here: my supervisor Professor R. R. R. Smith for his
guidance, help, and support; A. Burnett, V. Heuchert, C. Howgego,
and B. Woytek for discussion of the coinage; and Th. Schröder for
sparking my interest in Roman portraiture. I would also like to thank
the many institutions, museums, and auction houses that gave
permission to publish the many images in this book.
Oxford, 2022
C O N T E N TS
List of Illustrations
List of Tables
Abbreviations
1. Introduction: aims and methods

A. State of research
B. Research questions, aims, and scope
C. Methodology and material
2. Faustina: imperial coins and medallions

A. Research history and state of research
B. Typological sequence and chronology
C. Portrait types
D. Analysis and conclusions
3. Faustina: marble portraits

B. Portrait types
C. Analysis and conclusions
4. Faustina: discussion
5. Marcus Aurelius: imperial coins and medallions

B. Chronology
C. Chronological development and change of the portrait
D. Analysis and conclusions
6. Marcus Aurelius: marble portraits

B. Portrait types
C. Analysis and conclusions
7. Marcus Aurelius: discussion
8. Organization of the mint of Rome and system of production
9. Metropolitan marble technology and marble workshops
10. Imperial portrait practice: norms and models in the second

century
A. Evaluation
B. Outline of an adjusted model of an imperial portrait ‘system’
11. Conclusion
Appendix: Portrait Lists of Faustina and Marcus Aurelius

Bibliography
Illustrations
Index
L I S T O F I L L U S T R AT I O N S
1. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 157 (TRP XI). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars

Classica NAC AG, Auction 92, 24 May 2016, Lot 2250.
3. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 157 (TRP XI). Courtesy of Nomisma S. p. a.,
Auction 49, 13 May 2014, Lot 174.
4. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 152 (TRP VI). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
5. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 152 (TRP VI). Courtesy of Baldwin’s Auctions
Ltd, The New York Sale 40, 11 Jan. 2017, Lot 1233.
6. Portrait types of Faustina the Younger on coins. Courtesy of: (Type I) Áureo
& Calicó, Auction 241, 8 Feb. 2012, Lot 125; (Type II) Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 31, 26 Oct. 2005, Lot 57; (Type III) Numismatica
Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 91, 23 May 2016, Lot 25; (Type IV) Classical
Numismatic Group, Auction Triton 14, 4 Jan. 2011, Lot 733; (Type V)
Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 52, 7 Oct. 2009, Lot 1127; (Type
VI) From Leu Numismatik AG (1992–2005), Auction 93, 10 May 2005, Lot
37; (Type VII) Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 51, 5 Mar. 2009,
Lot 314; (Type VIII) Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 31, 26 Oct.
2005, Lot 58; (Type IX) Numismatik Lanz München, Auction 148, 4 Jan.
2010, Lot 110; (Type X) Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 51, 5
Mar. 2009, Lot 316.
7. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Alexandria, AE (27 mm), ad 147/48. Courtesy
of Classical Numismatic Group, Auction Triton 21, 9 Jan. 2018, Lot 177.
8. Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger, Type V. Alexandria, Tetradrachm,
ad 161. Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch GmbH, Auction 98, 21 Sept.
2015, Lot 227.
9. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Alexandria, AE (23 mm), ad 162/63. Courtesy
of Classical Numismatic Group, Auction Triton 21, 9 Jan. 2018, Lot 180.
10. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Alexandria, Tetradrachm, ad 163/64.
Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch GmbH, Auction 101, 19 Apr. 2016, Lot
1435.
11. Antoninus Pius and Faustina the Younger, Type III. Alexandria, Tetradrachm,
ad 152/53. Courtesy of Emporium Hamburg, Auction 71, 8 May 2014, Lot
179.
12. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Aureus. Courtesy of Sincona AG, Auction 10,
27 May 2013, Lot 270.
13. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica
NAC AG, Auction 72, 16 May 2013, Lot 666.
14. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Aureus. Courtesy of Hess-Divo AG, Auction
314, 4 May 2009, Lot 1569.
15. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Aureus. Courtesy of Gemini, LLC, Auction 2, 11
Jan. 2006, Lot 478.
16. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Denarius. Courtesy of Leu Numismatik AG,
Auction 1, 25 Oct. 2017, Lot 229.
17. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica
NAC AG, Auction 33, 6 Apr. 2006, Lot 505.
18. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Aureus. Courtesy of Áureo & Calicó, Auction
241, 8 Feb. 2012, Lot 125.
19. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Aureus. Courtesy of B.
Seifert/Luebke+Wiedemann, Germany; published: Heidelberger
Münzhandlung Herbert Grün e. K., Auction 53, 20 May 2010, Lot 321.
20. Faustina the Younger, Type II. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica
NAC AG, Auction 31, 26 Oct. 2005, Lot 57.
21. Faustina the Younger, Type II. Sestertius. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic
Group, Electronic Auction 377, 29 June 2016, Lot 447.
22. Faustina the Younger, Type II. Denarius. Courtesy of Bertolami Fine Arts—
ACR Auctions, Auction 7, 20 May 2013, Lot 650.
23. Faustina the Younger, Type III. Aureus. Courtesy of Áureo & Calicó, Auction
241, 8 Feb. 2012, Lot 124.
24. Faustina the Younger, Type III. Aureus. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic
Group, Electronic Auction 274, 22 Feb. 2012, Lot 371.
25. Faustina the Younger, Type III. Aureus. Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D.
Rauch GmbH, Auction 96, 10 Dec. 2014, Lot 380.
26. Faustina the Younger, Type III. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica
NAC AG, Auction 46, 2 Apr. 2008, Lot 1091.
27. Faustina the Younger, Type IV. Aureus. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic
Group, Auction Triton 14, 4 Jan. 2011, Lot 733.
28. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica
29. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Aureus. Courtesy of Nomisma S. p. a., Auction
47, 13 Apr. 2013, Lot 187.
30. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatik Lanz
München, Auction 145, 5 Jan. 2009, Lot 118.
31. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Aureus. Courtesy of UBS AG, Gold &
Numismatics, Auction 75, 22 Jan. 2008, Lot 1058.
32. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Aureus. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic
Group, Auction Triton 19, 5 Jan. 2016, Lot 575.
33. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Denarius. Courtesy of Solidus Numismatik,
Premium Auction 13, 25 Mar. 2017, Lot 244.
34. Faustina the Younger, Type V, variant. Medallion. © The Trustees of the
British Museum.
35. Faustina the Younger, Type V, variant. Medallion. © The Trustees of the
British Museum.
36. Faustina the Younger, variation of Type III? Aureus. Courtesy of UBS AG,
Gold & Numismatics, Auction 78, 9 Sept. 2008, Lot 1688.
39. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Sestertius. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 97, 12 Dec. 2016, Lot 154.
40. Faustina the Younger, Type VI (‘New Type’). Aureus. From Leu Numismatik
AG (1992–2005), Auction 93, 10 May 2005, Lot 37.
41. Faustina the Younger, Type VI (‘New Type’). Medallion. Courtesy of Classical
Numismatic Group, Auction Triton 8, 11 Jan. 2005, Lot 1148.
42. Faustina the Younger, Type VI (‘New Type’). Aureus. Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf
Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Osnabrück, and Lübke & Wiedemann KG, Leonberg;
Auction 158, 28 Sept. 2009, Lot 635.
43. Faustina the Younger, Type VI (‘New Type’). Aureus. Courtesy of
Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 92, 23 May 2016, Lot 600.
44. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 51, 5 Mar. 2009, Lot 314.
45. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Aureus. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic
Group, Auction 102, 18 May 2016, Lot 999.
46. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Sestertius. Courtesy of Sincona AG, Auction
4, 25 Oct. 2011, Lot 4110.
47. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Sestertius. Courtesy of Münzen & Medaillen
GmbH, Auction 32, 26 May 2010, Lot 473.
48. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 31, 26 Oct. 2005, Lot 58.
49. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Aureus. Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D.
Rauch GmbH, Auction 102, 7 Nov. 2016, Lot 97.
50. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Denarius. Courtesy of Numismatik
Naumann, Auction 26, 14 Dec. 2014, Lot 609.
51. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Denarius. Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D.
Rauch GmbH, Auction 103, 23 Mar. 2017, Lot 379.
52. Faustina the Younger, Type IX. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatik Lanz
München, Auction 148, 4 Jan. 2010, Lot 110.
53. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli
Imperatori 43. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/65812;
arachne.dainst.org/entity/65811 (G. Fittschen-Badura).
54. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
55. Faustina the Younger, Type IX. Aureus. Courtesy of Hess-Divo AG, Auction
314, 4 May 2009, Lot 1570.
56. Faustina the Younger, Type X. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica
NAC AG, Auction 51, 5 Mar. 2009, Lot 316.
57. Antoninus Pius. Aureus, ad 149 (TRP XII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
58. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Courtesy of Sotheby’s New York, Sale 5 June
2013, Lot 50.
59. Faustina the Younger, Type I. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, inv.
1986.40 (Open Access).
60. Daughter of Faustina the Younger? Possibly Annia Galeria Aurelia Faustina.
Tripoli, from Leptis Magna. Caputo and Traversari 1976, pls. 78–9.
61. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type I). Munich,
Glyptothek 535. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
62. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Rome, Vatican, Braccio Nuovo 54, inv. 2193.
Photo Copyright © Governorate of the Vatican City State—Directorate of the
Vatican Museums.
63. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Rome, Palazzo Spada. Courtesy of the
Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln:
arachne.dainst.org/entity/6226434; arachne.dainst.org/entity/6226436;
arachne.dainst.org/entity/6226437; arachne.dainst.org/entity/6226435 (G.
Fittschen-Badura).
64. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Schloss Erbach. Courtesy of the
Fittschen-Badura).
65. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli
Imperatori 32, inv. 449. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
66. Statue group of Faustina the Younger, Type I, and Marcus Aurelius. Rome,
Museo Capitolino, Salone 34, inv. 652. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für
Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/5334458 (B.
Malter).
67. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Detail of the statue group above. Courtesy of
the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln:
Fittschen-Badura).
68. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Munich, Glyptothek 408. Courtesy of the
Fitschen-Badura).
69. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Rome, Palazzo Colonna. Courtesy of the
Galleria Colonna, Rome.
70. Faustina the Younger, Type I. Rome, Vatican, Museo Chiaramonti XXXV 8, inv.
1740. Photo Copyright © Governorate of the Vatican City State—Directorate
of the Vatican Museums.
71. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman. Rome, Vatican. Courtesy of the
Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: Negative nos. Fitt75-
50-02; Fitt75-50-06 (G. Fittschen-Badura).
72. Faustina the Younger, Type III. Rome, Vatican, Museo Chiaramonti XV 9, inv.
1416. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Rom:
Negative nos. D-DAI-Rom-87Vat. 111; D-DAI-Rom-87Vat. 110; D-DAI-Rom-
87Vat. 109; D-DAI-Rom-87Vat. 112 (K. Anger).
73. Faustina the Younger, Type III. Rome, Palazzo Spada, Galleria Spada.
Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln:
Fittschen-Badura).
74. Portrait statue of a woman, probably ‘Athenais’. Olympia, from the
Nymphaeum of Herodes Atticus. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches
Institut, Abteilung Athen: Negative no. D-DAI-ATH-Hege-722 (W. Hege).
75. Portrait of a woman, probably ‘Athenais’. Detail of the statue above. Courtesy
of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Athen: Negative no. D-
DAI-ATH-Olympia-2719 (H. Wagner).
76. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type IV). Rome,
Villa Albani, inv. 152. Courtesy of the Fondazione Torlonia.
77. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type IV).
Athens, National Museum, inv. 442. Courtesy of the Hellenic Ministry of
Culture and Sports/National Archaeological Museum, Athens.
78. Faustina the Younger, Type V. London, British Museum 1468, from Cyrene. ©
The Trustees of the British Museum.
80. Lucilla, second portrait type. Aureus. From Leu Numismatik AG (1992–2005),
Auction 93, 10 May 2005, Lot 41.
81. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Rome, Vatican, Braccio Nuovo 48, inv. 2195.
Photo Copyright © Governorate of the Vatican City State—Directorate of the
Vatican Museums.
82. Faustina the Younger, Type V. Rome, Vatican, Museo Chiaramonti XXXI 9, inv.
1676. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Rom:
Negative nos. D-DAI-Rom-87Vat. 246; D-DAI-Rom-87Vat. 249; D-DAI-Rom-
87Vat. 248; D-DAI-Rom-87Vat. 247 (K. Anger).
83. Faustina the Younger, Type V. London, British Museum 1905, from Pozzuoli.
© The Trustees of the British Museum.
84. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type V). Rome,
Villa Doria Pamphilj. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
Abteilung Rom: Negative nos. D-DAI-Rom-69.375; D-DAI-Rom-39.376 (G.
Singer).
85. Lucilla, second portrait type. Detail of a portrait statue in Dresden, Staatliche
Kunstsammlungen. Courtesy of the Skulpturensammlung, Staatliche
Kunstsammlungen Dresden, photographs: Elke Estel/Hans-Peter Klut.
86. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Galleria 56, inv.
250. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln:
Fittschen-Badura).
87. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Paris, Louvre MA 1144. Photo © Musée du
Louvre, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Maurice et Pierre Chuzeville; Hervé
Lewandowski.
88. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano—Museo
delle Terme, inv. 691, colossal head. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für
Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: Negative nos. Fitt78-50-02; Fitt78-50-04
(G. Fittschen-Badura).
89. Faustina the Younger, Type VII. Paris, Louvre MA 1175, colossal head from
Markouna. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu
Köln: Negative nos. Fitt71-15-01; Fitt71-15-03; Fitt71-15-02; Fitt71-15-04
90. Female marble head (formerly attributed to Faustina Type VII). Sperlonga,
Museum. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung
Rom: Negative no. D-DAI-Rom-65.1998 (J. Felbermeyer).
91. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type VII).
Athens, National Museum 1687. Courtesy of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture
and Sports/National Archaeological Museum, Athens.
Athens, National Museum 4536. Courtesy of the Zentrale des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Berlin: Negative nos. D-DAI-Z-NEG-11378; D-DAI-
Z-NEG-11397.
93. Head of a personification or Tyche? (formerly attributed to Faustina Type
VII). Rome, Museo Torlonia 81. Courtesy of the Fondazione Torlonia.
Bucharest, from Ostrov. Bordenache 1962, figs. 1, 3a.
95. Faustina the Younger, Type VI (‘New Type’). Aureus. Courtesy of Classical
96. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Salone 46, inv.
666. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln:
97. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano—Museo
delle Terme, inv. 642. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
98. Faustina the Younger, Type VIII. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, inv. 5130,
from Kandilli. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität
zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/2265716;
arachne.dainst.org/entity/2265713 (N. Hannestad).
99. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type IX).
Stockholm, National Museum, inv. 85. Courtesy of the Nationalmuseum,
Stockholm.
100. Portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type IX). Cambridge,
Fitzwilliam Museum, inv. GR 27.1850. © The Fitzwilliam Museum,
Cambridge.
101. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type IX). From
Dyrrachium/Durrës. Courtesy of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of
Albania.
102. Faustina the Younger, Type IX. Aureus. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica
103. Limestone head of a woman (formerly attributed to Faustina Type X).
Eichstätt, Museum (formerly), from Pfünz. Von Sarwey et al. 1901, pl. 11 (B
1. 3).
104. Faustina the Younger, Type X. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli
Imperatori 33, inv. 310. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
105. Portrait bust of the freedwoman Sozusa, Hadrianic period. Chatsworth.
arachne.dainst.org/entity/222017 (D. Boschung);
arachne.dainst.org/entity/181832 (R. Laev).
106. Portrait bust of Claudia Olympias, probably a freedwoman, Trajanic period.
London, British Museum. © The Trustees of the British Museum.
107. Portrait of probably a sister of Lucius Verus (Ceionia Fabia or Ceionia
Plautia). Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. 336. Courtesy of the Deutsches
Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Rom: Negative nos. D-DAI-Rom-40.1062;
D-DAI-Rom-40.1061 (C. Faraglia).
108. Portrait of possibly the younger sister of Marcus Aurelius (Annia Cornificia
Faustina). Ostia. Courtesy of the Parco Archeologico di Ostia Antica.
109. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman, early Antonine period. Petworth. Courtesy of
arachne.dainst.org/entity/137280; arachne.dainst.org/entity/137278 (R.
Laev).
110. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman, early Antonine period. Rome, Museo Capitolino,
inv. 667. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu
Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/448408; arachne.dainst.org/entity/448411;
Fittschen-Badura).
111. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman, early Antonine period. Rome, Museo Capitolino,
inv. 677. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu
Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/5333087; arachne.dainst.org/entity/5333090;
Fittschen-Badura).
112. Portrait of Faustina the Elder, so-called ‘Plain Type’. Rome, Museo Capitolino,
Stanza degli Imperatori 27, inv. 447. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für
Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/5796374;
113. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman, early Antonine period. Rome, Palazzo dei
Conservatori, inv. 2764. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
114. ‘Private’ portrait of a woman, early Antonine period. Rome, Palazzo dei
Conservatori, inv. 2438. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
115. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, late ad 139 (COS DES).
Courtesy of Áureo & Calicó, Auction 241, 8 Feb. 2012, Lot 110.
116. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 140–4 (COS). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
117. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, late ad 144 (COS DES II). Courtesy of Cayón
Subastas, Auction May 2012, 16 May 2012, Lot 4641.
118. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 145–7 (COS II). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
119. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, end of ad 147 (TR POT COS II). Courtesy of
Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 49, 21 Oct. 2008, Lot 266.
120. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 148 (TRP II). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
121. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 161 (TRP XV). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 41, 20 Nov. 2007, Lot 98.
122. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 180 (TRP XXXIIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
123. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, late ad 139 (COS DES).
Courtesy of Áureo & Calicó, Auction 271, 8 Oct. 2015, Lot 2118.
124. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 140 or later (COS). Courtesy
of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 25, 25 June 2003, Lot 463.
of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 54, 24 Mar. 2010, Lot 437.
126. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 139 (COS DES). Courtesy
of Gemini, LLC, Auction 2, 11 Jan. 2006, Lot 456.
of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 67, 27 Oct. 2012, Lot 149.
128. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 140–4 (COS). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 34, 24 Nov. 2006, Lot 166.
129. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 140–4 (COS). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
130. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 140–4 (COS). Courtesy of Classical Numismatic
Group, Auction 90, 23 May 2012, Lot 1564.
131. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 140–4 (COS). Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker
GmbH & Co. KG, Osnabrück, and Lübke & Wiedemann KG, Leonberg;
Auction 216, 8 Oct. 2012, Lot 1029.
132. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 140–4 (COS). Courtesy of Hess-Divo AG, Auction
332, 31 May 2017, Lot 109.
133. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 140 or later (COS).
GNECCHI II, pl. 56. 3.
134. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 140–4 (COS). Courtesy of B.
Seifert/Luebke+Wiedemann, Germany; published: Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger,
Auction 371, 14 Apr. 2002, Lot 410.
135. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, late ad 144 (COS DES II). Courtesy of Cayón
Subastas, Auction May 2012, 16 May 2012, Lot 4641.
137. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 145–7 (COS II). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction R, 17 May 2007, Lot 1542.
140. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 145–7 (COS II). Courtesy of Heritage Auctions,
www.HA.com, Auction 3032, 10 Apr. 2014, Lot 23603.
141. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 145–7 (COS II). Courtesy of Heritage
Auctions, www.HA.com, Auction 3071, 6 Jan. 2019, Lot 32124.
142. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 145–7 (COS II). Courtesy of the
Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 18200639, photographs: Lutz-
Jürgen Lübke (Lübke und Wiedemann).
Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 18200638, photographs: Lutz-
Jürgen Lübke (Lübke und Wiedemann).
Münzkabinett, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 18205126, photographs:
Reinhard Saczewski.
145. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, end of ad 147 (TR POT COS II). Courtesy of Fritz
Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Osnabrück, and Lübke & Wiedemann KG,
Leonberg; Auction 273, 14 Mar. 2016, Lot 774.
146. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 148 (TRP II). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
147. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
148. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 152 (TRP VI). Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker
Auction 136, 10 Mar. 2008, Lot 1042.
149. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 152 (TRP VI). Courtesy of Baldwin’s Auctions
Ltd, The New York Sale 40, 11 Jan. 2017, Lot 1233.
150. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
151. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 152 (TRP VI). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
152. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 149 (TRP III). GNECCHI II, pl. 61. 10.
153. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D.
Rauch GmbH, Auction 94, 9 Apr. 2014, Lot 951.
154. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D.
Rauch GmbH, Auction 96, 10 Dec. 2014, Lot 361.
155. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Numismatik
Naumann, Auction 26, 14 Dec. 2014, Lot 601.
156. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
157. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Gorny & Mosch
Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 156, 5 Mar. 2007, Lot 2160.
158. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 153 (TRP VII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
159. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 154 (TRP VIII). Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker
Auction 236, 7 Oct. 2013, Lot 1079.
160. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 153 (TRP VII). Courtesy of Gorny & Mosch
Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction 208, 16 Oct. 2012, Lot 2087.
161. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 154 (TRP VIII). Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D.
Rauch GmbH, Summer Auction 2013, 18 Sept. 2013, Lot 664.
162. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 154 (TRP VIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
164. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 157 (TRP XI). Courtesy of Nomisma S. p. a.,
Auction 49, 13 May 2014, Lot 174.
165. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 156 (TRP X), detail without rim. GNECCHI II,
pl. 64. 3.170166. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 153 (TRP VII). Courtesy of
Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 59, 4 Apr. 2011, Lot 1020.
167. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 153 (TRP VII). Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker
Auction 204, 12 Mar. 2012, Lot 688.
168. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 153 (TRP VII). Courtesy of Gerhard Hirsch
Nachfolger, Auction 279–80, 8 Feb. 2012, Lot 2472.
169. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 153 (TRP VII). Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D.
Rauch GmbH, Auction 82, 23 Apr. 2008, Lot 357.
170. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 153 (TRP VII). Courtesy of Maison Palombo,
Auction 12, 6 Dec. 2013, Lot 73.
171. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 156 (TRP X). Courtesy of Jean Elsen & ses Fils
S. A., Auction 110, 10 Sept. 2011, Lot 367.
172. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 156 (TRP X). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
174. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 156 (TRP X). From LHS Numismatik AG,
Auction 100, 23 Apr. 2007, Lot 510.
175. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 156 (TRP X). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
176. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 160 (TRP XIIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
177. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 160 (TRP XIIII). Courtesy of Classical
Numismatic Group, Auction 100, 7 Oct. 2015, Lot 1891.
178. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 160 (TRP XIIII). Courtesy of Classical
179. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 158 (TRP XII). GNECCHI II, pl. 62. 5.
180. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 159 (TRP XIII). © The Trustees of the British
Museum.
181. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 160 (TRP XIIII). GNECCHI II, pl. 62. 7.
182. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 161 (TRP XV). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica, Auction 41, 20 Nov. 2007, Lot 97.
183. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 161 (TRP XV). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
184. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 162 (TRP XVI). Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker
Auction 182, 4 Mar. 2011, Lot 723.
185. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 162 (TRP XVI). Courtesy of Ira & Larry
Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Auction 80, 3 June 2014, Lot 3168.
186. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 161 (TRP XV). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
187. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 164 (TRP XVIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
188. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 166 (TRP XX IMP III). Courtesy of UBS AG, Gold
& Numismatics, Auction 62, 25 Jan. 2005, Lot 137.
189. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 163 (TRP XVII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 33, 6 Apr. 2006, Lot 499.
190. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 162 (TRP XVI). GNECCHI II, pl. 66. 8.175191.
Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 164 (TRP XVIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
192. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Medallion, c.ad 161/62. Courtesy of
Classical Numismatic Group, Auction Triton 18, 6 Jan. 2015, Lot 1118.
193. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 166 (TRP XX IMP IIII). Courtesy of Noble
Numismatics Pty Ltd, Auction 99, 17 Apr. 2012, Lot 3595.
194. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 166 (TRP XX IMP IIII). Courtesy of
Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 52, 7 Oct. 2009, Lot 1122.
195. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 167 (TRP XXI). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
196. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 166 (TRP XX IMP IIII). Courtesy of MDC
Monnaies de Collection sarl, Auction 1, 2 Dec. 2016, Lot 97.
197. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 167 (TRP XXI). Courtesy of Áureo & Calicó,
Auction 241, 8 Feb. 2012, Lot 118.
198. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 169 (TRP XXIII). Courtesy of B.
Seifert/Luebke+Wiedemann, Germany; published: Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger,
Auction 369, 31 Oct. 2001, Lot 585.
199. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 169 (TRP XXIII). Courtesy of Nomos AG, Auction
13, 7 Oct. 2016, Lot 275.
200. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 177 (TRP XXXI). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
Classica NAC AG, Auction 33, 6 Apr. 2006, Lot 504.
201. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 179 (TRP XXXIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
202. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 180 (TRP XXXIIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
203. Divus Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, CONSECRATIO. Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
204. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 171 (TRP XXV). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
205. Marcus Aurelius. Sestertius, ad 177 (TRP XXXI). Courtesy of Münzen &
Medaillen GmbH, Auction 35, 17 Nov. 2011, Lot 212.
206. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 166 (TRP XX IMP III). © The Trustees of the
British Museum.
207. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 167 (TRP XXI IMP IIII), Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Münzkabinett, inv. RÖ 32133. Courtesy of the
KHM-Museumsverband.
208. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 169 (TRP XXIII). Courtesy of the
Reinhard Saczewski.
209. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 167 (TRP XXI). GNECCHI II, pl. 63. 2.
210. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 173 (TRP XXVII). Courtesy of the
Reinhard Saczewski.
211. Marcus Aurelius. Medallion, ad 174 (TRP XXVIII). GNECCHI II, pl. 63. 8.
212. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Ira & Larry Goldberg
Coins & Collectibles, Auction 46, 26 May 2008, Lot 109.
213. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 149 (TRP III). Courtesy of Gemini, LLC, Auction
3, 9 Jan. 2007, Lot 402.
214. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 154 (TRP VIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
215. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 155 (TRP VIIII). Courtesy of Heritage Auctions,
www.HA.com, Auction 3019, 26 Apr. 2012, Lot 23417.
216. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 163 (TRP XVII). Courtesy of Noble Numismatics
Pty Ltd, Auction 111, 5 Apr. 2016, Lot 4416.
217. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 163 (TRP XVII). Courtesy of Classical
218. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 165 (TRP XIX). Courtesy of UBS AG, Gold &
Numismatics, Auction 64, 24 Jan. 2006, Lot 199.
219. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 166 (TRP XX). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
220. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 164 (TRP XVIII). Courtesy of Classical
Numismatic Group, Electronic Auction 284, 8 Aug. 2012, Lot 341.
221. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 167 (TRP XXI). Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker
Auction 182, 4 Mar. 2011, Lot 728.
222. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 160 (TR POT XIIII COS II DESIG III). Courtesy
of Numismatik Naumann, Auction 21, 7 Sept. 2014, Lot 632.
223. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 161 (TR POT XV COS III). Courtesy of
Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch GmbH, Auction 94, 9 Apr. 2014, Lot 958.
224. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius on horseback. Alexandria, AE (33 mm),
ad 139/40. Courtesy of the Münzsammlung des Instituts für Altertumskunde
der Universität zu Köln, Inv.-Nr. AL_1324.
225. Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Alexandria, AE (33 mm), ad 140/41.
Courtesy of John Aiello; RPC Online, vol. 4, temporary no. 16042.
226. Marcus Aurelius. Alexandria, AE (33 mm), ad 144/45. Courtesy of the
American Numismatic Society, inv. 1973.56.901.
227. Marcus Aurelius. Alexandria, AE (33 mm), ad 144/45. © The Trustees of the
British Museum.
228. Marcus Aurelius. Alexandria, Tetradrachm, ad 169/70. Courtesy of the
American Numismatic Society, inv. 1944.100.61192.
229. Marcus Aurelius, Type I. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Galleria 36, inv. 279.
Fittschen-Badura).
230. Marcus Aurelius, Type I. Holkham Hall. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für
Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/79196 (R.
Laev); arachne.dainst.org/entity/457418; arachne.dainst.org/entity/457417;
arachne.dainst.org/entity/457414 (K. Walton).
231. Marcus Aurelius, Type I. Rome, Museo Capitolino, Galleria 36, inv. 279 (left),
and Museo Capitolino, Stanza degli Imperatori 29, inv. 450 (right). Courtesy
of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln:
Fittschen-Badura).
232. Marcus Aurelius, Type I. Rome, Vatican, Croce Greca 583, inv. 227, from
Ostia. Photo Copyright © Governorate of the Vatican City State—Directorate
of the Vatican Museums.
233. Marcus Aurelius, Type I. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Antikensammlung, inv. I 864, Relief panel from the ‘Parthian Frieze’, Ephesus.
Courtesy of the KHM-Museumsverband.
234. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Florence, Galleria degli Uffizi, inv. 1914.179.
Courtesy of the Gallerie degli Uffizi; courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für
Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/166433 (G.
Fittschen-Badura).
235. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Toulouse, Musée Saint-Raymond, inv. 30107, from
Chiragan. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu
Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/5796688; arachne.dainst.org/entity/5796639
(N. Hannestad).
236. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Farnborough Hall, inv. 12. Courtesy of the
arachne.dainst.org/entity/935084; arachne.dainst.org/entity/935081 (both R.
Laev); arachne.dainst.org/entity/935080 (G. Geng);
arachne.dainst.org/entity/935082 (R. Laev).
237. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Tarragona, Museu Nacional Arqueològic, inv. 386.
Courtesy of the Museu Nacional Arqueològic de Tarragona/R. Cornadó.
238. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. London, British Museum 1464, from Cyrene.
arachne.dainst.org/entity/196756 (H. Oehler); © The Trustees of the British
Museum.
239. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Paris, Louvre MA 1156. Courtesy of the
Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: Negative nos. Fitt71-
08-10; Fitt71-08-09 (G. Fittschen-Badura).
240. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Samos, Vathy, Museum, depot no. 130. Courtesy of
the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports/Ephorate of Antiquities of Samos
and Ikaria.
241. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Frascati, Villa Aldobrandini, from Ostia. Courtesy of
the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Rom: Negative nos. D-
DAI-Rom-53.25R; D-DAI-Rom-53.26R.
242. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 6090.
Fittschen-Badura).
243. Antoninus Pius. Rome, Museo delle Terme. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv
für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/1935812 (G.
Fittschen-Badura).
244. Antoninus Pius. Toulouse, Musée Saint-Raymond. Courtesy of the
245. Antoninus Pius. Castle Howard. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike
Plastik, Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/56682 (R. Laev).
246. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Florence, Palazzo Pitti, inv. 682. Courtesy of the
Gallerie degli Uffizi, Palazzo Pitti.
247. Marcus Aurelius, Type II. Hampton Court Palace. Courtesy of the
248. Marcus Aurelius, Type II/III (hybrid). Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, inv.
GR. 33.1850. © The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge.
249. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano—Museo delle
Terme 726, inv. 108598. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
250. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Dresden, Skulpturensammlung, Staatliche
Kunstsammlungen 386. Courtesy of the Skulpturensammlung, Staatliche
Kunstsammlungen Dresden, photographs: Elke Estel/Hans-Peter Klut.
251. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Rome, Museo Capitolino, equestrian bronze statue.
252. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Rome, Vatican, Sala dei Busti 285, inv. 704.
Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Rom: Negative
nos. D-DAI-Rom-96Vat. 2084; D-DAI-Rom-96Vat. 2078 (K. Anger).
253. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek 700, inv.
1424. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu
Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/5332756; arachne.dainst.org/entity/5332753
254. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Paris, Louvre MA 1159. Courtesy of the
Fittschen-Badura).
255. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Paris, Louvre MA 1161, from Probalinthos.
256. Marcus Aurelius, Type IV. Rome, Palazzo Braschi, Salone, inv. 234. Courtesy
of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik, Universität zu Köln:
Fittschen-Badura).
257. Marcus Aurelius, Type IV. Rome, Museo Nazionale Romano—Museo delle
Terme 638. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung
Rom: Negative nos. D-DAI-Rom-38.737; D-DAI-Rom-38.736 (C. Faraglia).
258. Marcus Aurelius, Type IV. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum,
Antikensammlung, I 65. Courtesy of the KHM-Museumsverband.
259. Marcus Aurelius, Type IV, Variant A. Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. 807,
‘Sacrifice Panel’. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
Abteilung Rom: Negative no. D-DAI-Rom-38.377 (C. Faraglia); courtesy of
arachne.dainst.org/entity/5335159 (B. Malter).
260. Marcus Aurelius, Type IV, Variant B. Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. 808,
‘Triumph Panel’. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut,
Abteilung Rom: Negative nos. D-DAI-Rom-38.373; D-DAI-Rom-38.372 (C.
Faraglia).
261. Marcus Aurelius, Type IV. Rome, Museo Capitolino, inv. 809, ‘Clementia
Panel’. Courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Abteilung Rom:
Negative nos. D-DAI-Rom-38.367; D-DAI-Rom-38.366 (C. Faraglia).
262. Marcus Aurelius, Type III/IV (hybrid). Istanbul, Archaeological Museum, inv.
5129, from Kandilli. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
Universität zu Köln: arachne.dainst.org/entity/2265715 (N. Hannestad).
263. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 148 (TRP II), detail of Fig. 146 above. Courtesy
of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 97, 12 Dec. 2016, Lot 147.
264. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 152 (TRP VI). Courtesy of Fritz Rudolf Künker
Auction 136, 10 Mar. 2008, Lot 1042.
265. Antoninus Pius. Aureus, ad 149 (TRP XII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
266. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 164 (TRP XVIII). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars
267. Lucius Verus. Aureus, ad 164 (TRP IIII). Courtesy of Ira & Larry Goldberg
Coins & Collectibles, Auction 62, 1 Feb. 2011, Lot 3202.
268. Marcus Aurelius. Denarius, ad 149 (TRP III), detail of Fig. 153 above.
Courtesy of Auktionshaus H. D. Rauch GmbH, Auction 94, 9 Apr. 2014, Lot
951.
269. Marcus Aurelius, Type III. Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv.
150820, from Capua. Courtesy of the Forschungsarchiv für Antike Plastik,
270. Marcus Aurelius, Type III/IV. Jerusalem, Cloister of Saint-Étienne, inv.
1905.4, from Gerasa in Jordan. Courtesy of the Couvent St. Étienne, École
biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem.
271. Marcus Aurelius Type IV. Musée romain d’Avenches, from Avenches. Courtesy
of AVENTICUM, Site et Musée romains d’Avenches, photographs: Philippe
Nicolet/NVP3D.
272. Marcus Aurelius Type III. Pécs, Janus Pannonius Múzeum, from
Lugio/Dunaszekcső. Courtesy of the Janus Pannonius Múzeum, Pécs,
Hungary, photographs: István Füzi.
273. Marcus Aurelius Type III (?). Budapest, Aquincum Museum, inv. 64.11.136,
from Contra-Aquincum. Courtesy of the BHM Aquincum Museum, Budapest,
Hungary, photograph: Péter Komjáthy.
L I S T O F TA B L E S
2.1 Concordance of Faustina’s portrait types

2.2 Coins of Faustina: Group 1
2.3 Coins of Faustina: Group 2
2.4 Medallions of Faustina: Group 1
2.5 Medallions of Faustina: Group 2
2.6 Adjusted absolute chronology of portrait types and their connection with
child-related reverses
2.7 Estimated period of (main) use of the portrait types from ad 147 to 175/76
2.8 Chronology of births of Faustina’s children and their relation to reverse type
A B B R E V I AT I O N S
BMCRE IV H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British

Museum IV. Antoninus Pius to Commodus (London, 1940,
corr. reprint 1968).
CELLINI, treatises The Treatises of Benvenuto Cellini on Goldsmithing and
Sculpture. Translated into English by C. R. Ashbee (London,
1898).
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.
GNECCHI I–III F. Gnecchi, I medaglioni romani I–III (Milan, 1912).
IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes.
IK Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien.
ILS Inscriptiones Latinae selectae.
LIMC Lexicon iconographicum mythologiae classicae.
RPC Online Roman Provincial Coinage Online
(http://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk).
SHA Scriptores Historiae Augustae.
Note to reader: please note that the coins and medallions are not
illustrated to scale.
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Aims and methods
It has long been recognized that the portraits of Roman emperors

and their immediate family members (‘imperial portraits’) from the
age of Augustus to around the middle of the third century ad are not
unique representations but in many cases show a remarkable
accordance in the rendering of certain iconographic details such as
the arrangement of the hair.1 While it is clear that the basic purpose
of this phenomenon was to ensure recognizability, the ancient
processes behind it, the processes of creation, dissemination, and
replication, are obscure.2 As related literary sources are sparse or of
a later period, we are almost completely reliant on archaeology, on
the portraits themselves, and the evidence of statue bases, to shed
light on these matters.3 The way we perceive these processes is
important because it influences our interpretation of imperial
portraits in general.4
To investigate these processes, this study is primarily concerned
with the appearance and details of the imperial portrait heads with
their replicated individualized portrait identity (and posture)—
frequently the only part of the portraits surviving. The term ‘portrait’
is, accordingly, used in a very narrow sense. One must be aware,
however, that in sculpture the head was never a self-sufficient
monument on its own in ancient times. It was always combined with
a statue or bust support—the primary forms of display of the
imperial family around the empire—as a vital part of the message
the portraits were intended to convey in their local context.
Furthermore, the statues were set on an inscribed base, as an
integral element of the monument. The favoured costume choices
for emperors’ portraits in the second century were cuirassed,
standing for the military imperator, and—much less common—naked
with weapons (‘heroic costume’). The toga costume was still
sometimes used, but in contrast to the first century ad it was rarely
employed in the period discussed here. The empress, in comparison,
was represented draped with tunic and mantle. All of these choices
were not restricted to imperial portraits but also used for ‘private’
portraiture.5
The archaeological and textual evidence suggests that the
production of imperial portraits reached its height in the second
century ad and it is absolutely clear that the surviving portraits are
only a fraction of what once must have existed.6 They were a
demonstration of loyalty, a massive approbation of the imperial
family organized from below by communities and individuals.7 On
the scale of this approbation—in the following referred to in its
entirety as constituting an honorific ‘system’—we are informed by
one of the very few contemporary literary sources on imperial
portrait practices in this period, a famous letter from Cornelius
Fronto to his pupil Marcus Aurelius (ad M. Caesarem 4. 12. 6):
You know how in all money-changers’ bureaus, booths, shops, porches, forecourts
and windows, anytime and everywhere portraits of you are displayed to the
people, badly painted most of them to be sure, and modelled or carved in a rude,
not to say coarse kind of art; yet whenever your image encounters my eyes in the
streets, never is it so unrecognizable that it would not make me blow a sweet
kiss.8
The text passage tells us that imperial portraits were ubiquitous,

painted or sculptured in all sorts of qualities, but never so dissimilis
that they would not have been recognizable. As we know from the
archaeological and textual evidence, the imperial image was not only
omnipresent in Rome and Italy, but also in the cities throughout the
empire: in public places and public buildings, but imperial portraits
were also on display in private houses and shops. Likewise, the
emperor’s image was ever-present in the realm of the military, in
every legionary and auxiliary camp.9 Besides sculpture in the round
and reliefs—in precious metal, bronze, or stone (predominantly
marble), and from colossal to under life-size—many portraits must
have been painted. In addition, other media are also known to have
been used for the imperial image, such as gems and cameos, to
name just a few examples. Beyond that, almost everyone must have
known the emperor’s likeness from coins.10
A. STATE OF RESEARCH
Research on the phenomenon of ‘replicated’ imperial portraits has

eventually led from the groundbreaking work of E. H. Swift and O.
Brendel in the early twentieth century, to modern typological studies,
clearly demonstrating by means of the modern practice of the
typological method that extant imperial portraits depend on now lost
centrally defined models (‘original’ model or prototype). These
shared models, setting the individualized portrait identity of the
subject, are called portrait types. Several of them are known for
many emperors and their family members. It is evident from the
extant portraits that these types were made available to the
workshops in Rome and further disseminated to provincial cities by
mechanisms we do not fully understand and that they were revised
for reasons we often do not know.11
These regular portrait practices and processes of creation,
dissemination, and ‘replication’ of imperial portrait types with the
purpose of ensuring the recognizability of the imperial image are in
the following referred to as the ‘imperial portrait system’. The term
‘system’, however, has to be understood as without an intention like
‘propaganda’ or central direction and organization. The phenomenon
of ‘replication’ of sculpture for easy recognition of the subject was
not new when these portrait practices started under Augustus.
Classical-looking marble figures for an Italian villa market had
already been ‘replicated’ in an organized manner since the late
Republican period and some kind of ‘system’ must have been at
hand.12
Portrait types
The term ‘portrait type’ was introduced by J. J. Bernoulli in the last
volume of his study on imperial portraits, Römische Ikonographie II.
3 (1894).13 It was first systematically defined and used by O.
Brendel in his dissertation Ikonographie des Kaisers Augustus,
published in 1931.14 Portrait types are frequently named after their
supposed reason for creation or after what is regarded as their best
surviving example (‘Leitstück’). Both practices are not unproblematic,
as the first implies that the reason for the creation of the type is
certain while the latter promotes a particular portrait against which
others are measured. In relation to the type, however, all portraits
are adjusted in some way or another.15
Some of the traditional vocabulary in relation to portrait types like
‘copy’, ‘replica’, or ‘repetition’, much of it developed in the early
twentieth century, is abandoned in this study—such terms are
recognized now by many as not particularly helpful for describing the
ancient processes behind the phenomena we observe. Vocabulary
needs to be found that allows more flexibility and imprecision—there
are too many gaps in the preserved evidence for full precision to be
reached. Consequently, portraits following the same type are in this
study simply called ‘versions’ instead of using the confusing terms
‘copy’, ‘replica’, or ‘repetition’, which were originally introduced by G.
Lippold (1923) for copies after Greek originals and are too greatly
influenced by modern perceptions.16
Typological method and identification of imperial
portraits
The modern practice of the typological method in portrait studies
consists of a detailed comparison of all the extant portrait heads that
are suggested as versions of a given subject (‘Kopienkritik’ or
‘Kopienrezension’). The aim is to establish a ‘core-group’ of versions
that allows conclusions to be drawn on the design, appearance, and
style of an underlying model. Based on this ‘core-group’ and our
perception of the underlying model, portraits that fall within a range
of adjustment and variation of a set of common characteristics are
considered versions of the same type after a lost ‘original model’
(prototype), while portraits that fall outside that range are
excluded.17 The main criterion for the classification is not a general
portrait resemblance but the repetition of a sufficient number of key
features. The most readily and objectively comparable feature is the
hairstyle, in particular (for male portraits) the formation of hair
above the forehead, but other characteristics such as the (more
variable) physiognomy are also compared. The result of this
procedure is a list or series of portraits made after one prototype, all
representing the same subject, but with varying degrees of
closeness to the common model.18 As the next step, the subject can
be named by an inscribed example.19
The typological method shows that the range of variation of
different versions of a type is not continuous but that they vary
‘around a set of repeated design elements’. Seemingly dissimilar
portraits can refer to a common model or type by the repetition of
certain key features, while apparently similar images merely
resemble imperial portrait types.20 Therefore, the method allows us,
once the types are securely attributed to imperial personages, to
identify imperial portraits from objective criteria among the vast
quantity of similar non-imperial (‘private’) portraits that were either
influenced by imperial portraiture, or from which these images
emerged.21 It is important, as R. Smith noted, to distinguish the
practice of the modern typological method from the ancient
processes behind the phenomenon of ‘replicated’ portrait images.
They do share, however, the basic common purpose of recognition
and identification.22
Non-type imperial portraits

It cannot be ruled out that ‘unique representations’ or ‘non-type’
portraits (‘Einzelstücke’) of the emperor or his family members were
made. However, without any reference to known imperial types nor
an identifying inscription or context, it is on an objective basis
impossible to identify them archaeologically and distinguish them
from contemporary non-imperial (‘private’) portraits. In
consequence, ‘non-type’ imperial portraits remain an entirely
theoretical category.23
Traditional model of an imperial portrait ‘system’

The model of an imperial portrait ‘system’ widely received today was
first systematically expressed by K. Fittschen. He suggested that
imperial portrait types were conceived in connection with specific
events and that an artist was commissioned by the court in Rome to
create a three-dimensional ‘original model’ or prototype (normally
thought to be made of clay, plaster, or wax). This ‘official’ prototype
was then made available to the mint and to the marble workshops
where it was transformed into a mint model by a ‘master die-cutter’
(‘entwerfender Münzstempelschneider’) and into a sculptured model
made of durable material (presumably marble or bronze) by a
‘master sculptor’ (‘entwerfender Bildhauer’), respectively. According
to Fittschen, the sculptured model was then ‘copied’ by the marble
carvers of the metropolitan workshops and further distributed.24
Key concepts of this model are, accordingly, the assumption of a
metropolitan creation of all portrait types under the control of the
court (official commissioning), the view that there is a close
correspondence between imperial coins and sculpture, and the belief
that types are in most cases, if not all, created to commemorate
specific events.25
Significance of method and model for modern

portrait studies
The typological method and this kind of detailed research more
generally have been criticized as being ‘traditional’, ‘formulaic’,
‘stagnant’, and ‘fossilized’ by some English-speaking scholars.26 It is,
however, of fundamental importance not to misunderstand this
approach as ‘some kind of misguided, positivist exercise that is out
of touch with ancient realities and complexities’, as R. Smith
characterizes the opposition to Fittschen’s viewpoint.27 Despite
controversial positions in scholarship, it must be explicitly stated that
the practice of the typological method is essential for modern
portrait studies.28 It clearly works, and the alternative of an
identification and attribution of imperial portraits based on subjective
criteria such as a general resemblance of physiognomy and hairstyle
is not an option.29 Furthermore, the model of centrally provided
imperial portrait types has in principle to be accepted. ‘No other
model of explanation will account for the observable phenomena’, as
Smith correctly noted.30
The traditional model of an imperial portrait ‘system’ also has
been criticized by various scholars, as it appears too inflexible in a
number of cases to describe the ancient practices and processes
behind the phenomenon of ‘replicated’ imperial portraits.31 The main
weaknesses of the model have most comprehensively been sketched
by J. Fejfer in 2008.32 She argued that it is far from sure that
imperial portrait types were created in connection with specific
events to commemorate them—too much depends on the
interpretation of imperial coinage and the ambiguity involved.
Furthermore, as also argued by Fejfer, the relation between portraits
on imperial coins and sculptured portraits may not be as close or
tight as generally assumed. There appears to be no complete
correspondence between the portraits in the two media. Fejfer
supposed that the creation of portrait types was not necessarily
restricted to official commissions only.
What has been missing up to now is a systematic investigation of
these questions. The only hypothesis that has been thoroughly
worked through the evidence is the old one that portraits were
changed for specific historical events. No new hypotheses have yet
been made to stick through a careful reassessment of complete
bodies of evidence, through thorough research on a broad material
basis. This study attempts such an examination of the complete
material for Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger and proposes
an adjusted model of an imperial portrait ‘system’.
B. RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AIMS, AND SCOPE
To approach the portrait practices and processes of creation,

dissemination, and ‘replication’ of imperial portrait types, questions
have to be set out. One wants to know how the ‘system’ worked and
what it was for. Possible answers to these fundamental questions
can only be found by a close investigation of the surviving evidence
—by an investigation of the two most abundantly preserved and
well-studied portrait media: imperial coins and marble portraits. This
naturally entails a strong focus on the workings of the imperial
portrait in the mint of Rome and in the metropolitan marble
workshops, as the majority of the surviving sculptured imperial
portraits originate from Rome and Italy. Basic questions involved are:
What happened to portrait types after they came into existence?
How were imperial portrait types received and adjusted in the
marble workshops and in the mint of Rome? To what extent do
sculptured portraits and portraits on imperial coinage correspond
and do they share the same prototype or ‘original model’?
This will lead to the more comprehensive questions of this study:
one would like to know why and for whom it mattered that imperial
portrait types were created and disseminated. Furthermore, why
were multiple types conceived for many emperors and their
immediate family members and what were they for? Finally, we will
return to the initial question of what the ‘system’ was for.
Aims and scope

This study is primarily intended to examine the main aspects of the
creation of centrally defined imperial portrait types and the first
‘step’ of their dissemination in metropolitan Rome. It is also intended
to make imperial portraits and their typology accessible to a wider
audience—not merely to a restricted body of specialists—and to have
an impact on received positions. The aims are to gain new insights
into portrait practices of the second century ad and to clarify
widespread misconceptions. This is of foremost importance, because
without a better understanding of the centrally defined models and
their workings in metropolitan Rome we can hardly assess the
significance of local variants and their functioning in the provinces.33
The wider deployment of imperial portrait types in the provinces
will be briefly outlined in Chapter 10 as part of an adjusted historical
model of a Roman imperial portrait ‘system’ that better accounts for
the observations and findings presented here than the old model.
C. METHODOLOGY AND MATERIAL
The research questions will be investigated on a broad material

basis, by two sets of systematic comparative case studies of the
portraits of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the Younger on imperial
coins and medallions as well as in the round.34 This study builds on
much previous work done in this area, more fully acknowledged in
the chapters that follow.35
In the first instance, the different media (coins and marble
sculpture) will be examined and discussed separately in Chapters 2
and 3 (Faustina the Younger) and Chapters 5 and 6 (Marcus
Aurelius) to obtain a clear and objective picture of each medium.
Further questions and related aspects are addressed sequentially in
these chapters: Chapter 2 has a strong focus on the relation
between birth-related reverse types on coins and the portrait types
of Faustina, while Chapter 3 looks into aristocratic female ‘private’
portraiture and its relation to the imperial image. Chapter 5
investigates in detail the workings of the imperial image in the mint
of Rome, and finally, Chapter 6 addresses the workings of the
imperial image in the metropolitan marble workshops.
The next stage discusses the correspondence and interaction of
the portraits on coins and in sculpture, and more comprehensive
questions concerning the creation and dissemination of imperial
types will be further pursued (Chapters 4 and 7). A close-up view of
the mint’s organization and the system of production is given in
Chapter 8, and an outline of metropolitan marble technology and the
difficulties involved in identifying individual workshops can be found
in Chapter 9. This is followed by a broad evaluation and an adjusted
model of an imperial portrait ‘system’ (Chapter 10) and a brief
conclusion (Chapter 11).
Portrait lists of the sculptured portraits of both Marcus and
Faustina organized by types can be found in the Appendix. They
allow easy access to the complete body of extant portraits and
complement the numbers and statistics given in the main text. The
aim is a clear structure and verifiable arguments underpinned by the
ancient evidence. The arguments lead to broader conclusions, and a
fuller picture of imperial portrait practice will be developed. The
advantages of this approach—especially for the non-specialist on
imperial portraits—as opposed to a full catalogue and a full die study
should be clear.36
Imperial coins and medallions
Imperial coins as a primary source are virtually completely preserved
in their typological variety.37 No other medium offers the opportunity
to investigate the diachronic development of the imperial portrait,
securely attributed by the coin legend, in this density. Moreover, the
identification and chronology of the emperor’s and empress’s portrait
in other media in most cases depend on imperial coinage. Our
understanding of how the imperial portrait functioned in the mint of
Rome is therefore crucial for our perception of imperial portraiture in
general.
Medallions have to be included in this analysis, as they stand
stylistically and typologically very close to the imperial coinage and
are, like the latter, the product of the mint of Rome.38 In contrast to
the coins, they were not intended for circulation as currency, but for
presentation or distribution as an imperial gift.39 They were issued in
small numbers and are often characterized by their fine style and
unusual reverse types.40
Resources. For imperial coins of Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the
Younger, P. Strack’s Untersuchungen zur römischen Reichsprägung
des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Teil III (1937) and H. Mattingly’s Coins of
the Roman Empire in the British Museum, vol. IV (1940) remain the
most comprehensive systematic collections and they are
indispensable for any investigation of the subject.41 For Roman
medallions, the material collected by F. Gnecchi and published in the
second and third volume of his catalogue I medaglioni romani
(1912) is still fundamental, although some readings are erroneous
and the descriptions can be outdated.42 Comprehensive online digital
resources and important research tools are doubtless the
professional version of CoinArchives, which offers high resolution
images of a vast number of coins sold at auction from around the
year 2000 onwards, and Online Coins of the Roman Empire
(OCRE).43
Characteristics of the medium. The coin dies of the Antonine
period, known to us from their mirror image on the coins, were
mostly deeply cut and produced a portrait in high relief in relation to
their dimensions. Photographic images disguise the three-
dimensional qualities of the coin portrait to a certain degree and
make it difficult to correctly conceive the carefully articulated relief
properties of the physiognomy as well as the hair- and beard-style of
skilfully cut dies. A number of dies even bear witness to an attempt
to go beyond the limitation of the strict profile view and to take
characteristics of the frontal hair-scheme as far as possible into the
profile (Fig. 1).44 This is particularly obvious when this attempt led to
an exaggerated stylization of the frontal hair-scheme (Figs. 2–3).
Therefore, there can be little doubt that coin portraits follow, in one
way or another, three-dimensional models and are related to the
portraits in the round. How close this relation is, remains to be
assessed in this study.
The conversion of a portrait in the round into a coin portrait
involves several steps: the reduction of size, the focus on the profile,
and the transfer of sculptural techniques into engraving.45 The small
scale inevitably results in a loss of details and especially in a
simplification of hair- and beard-styles. Furthermore, we have to
take into account the skill of the different die-cutters, as the dies are
engraved by hand. All of this can result in a certain variability of the
portrait within every respective issue.
In addition, the individual style of the die-cutter can considerably
influence the appearance of the portrait on the die. The same motif
of an underlying model, for example short curly hair, can be
rendered on different dies as curved strands of hair (Fig. 4) or curls
(Fig. 5). However, this is not a typological change or change in the
underlying portrait type but a variation around its design elements.
The portraits on aurei, sestertii, and medallions especially were
minted from carefully cut dies and they are, in the majority, of high
quality, with a definable range of variation. The dies for other
denominations, particularly the denarius, were often worked with
less care and the portrait and its quality can vary more widely, as the
mirror images on the coins confirm.46
Investigated samples. For this study, two samples of 599 aurei of
Marcus Aurelius and 257 aurei of Faustina the Younger have been
employed to identify and investigate 216 obverse dies of Marcus and
99 obverse dies of Faustina.47 This systematic die study was
complemented by the detailed comparison of the identified dies with
several thousand coins of Marcus and Faustina in different
denominations—including many examples from numismatic core
collections (in major public institutions)—and the medallions
collected by Gnecchi.48
The portraits on the identified obverse dies for aurei of Marcus
Aurelius and Faustina the Younger correspond well to the range of
variation of their portraits observed on coins and medallions not
represented in the samples. That is to say, the dies identified are
representative of the portrait variety that once existed.49 Two
examples may suffice to support this: first, M. Beckmann did not
observe any types or varieties of the portrait image of Faustina in his
die study that cannot also be found in our sample, despite the fact
that he identified 134 obverse dies.50 Second, of the fifteen aurei of
Marcus Aurelius as Caesar that K. Fittschen depicts in his study
Prinzenbildnisse antoninischer Zeit (1999) and uses for his
argument, fourteen of the obverse dies are also represented in our
sample.51
Quantity of coins. The quantity of extant coins of an issue in all
denominations can roughly inform us if it was small or large, keeping
in mind that the numbers of coins minted in the respective
denomination can vary widely. This also hints at the frequency of the
connected portrait, that is, if it was rare or common. However, this
probably tells us more about the patterns of employment of a
portrait type in the mint than about its importance proper.
Design. The level of imperial control on the design of imperial
coins and its significance is not completely clear and is the subject of
an ongoing debate in scholarship. To what extent the emperor or his
close advisers took an interest in coinage is hard to assess, but the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
He means to say that the fourth commandment enforces the
seventh day from the creation to the resurrection of Christ, and since
that enforces a different seventh day, namely, the seventh from
Christ’s resurrection. Such is the perverse ingenuity by which men
can evade the law of God and yet make it appear that they are
faithfully observing it.
Such was the origin of the seventh-part-of-time theory, by which
the seventh day is dropped out of the fourth commandment, and one
day in seven slipped into its place; a doctrine most opportunely
framed at the very period when nothing else could save the
venerable day of the sun. With the aid of this theory, the Sunday of
“Pope and Pagan” was able coolly to wrap itself in the fourth
commandment, and then in the character of a divine institution, to
challenge obedience from all Bible Christians. It could now cast
away the other frauds on which its very existence had depended,
and support its authority by this one alone. In the time of Constantine
it ascended the throne of the Roman Empire, and during the whole
period of the Dark Ages it maintained its supremacy from the chair of
St. Peter; but now it had ascended the throne of the Most High. And
thus a day which God “commanded not nor spake it, neither came it
into” his “mind,” was enjoined upon mankind with all the authority of
his holy law. The immediate effect of Dr. Bound’s work upon the
existing controversy is thus described by an Episcopalian eye-
witness, Dr. Heylyn:—
“For by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath

speculations [concerning Sunday], teaching that that day only
‘was of God’s appointment, and all the rest observed in the
church of England, a remnant of the will-worship in the church
of Rome;’ the other holy days in this church established, were
so shrewdly shaken that till this day they are not well
recovered of the blow then given. Nor came this on the by or
besides their purpose, but as a thing that specially was
intended from the first beginning.”[1048]
In a former chapter, we called attention to the fact that Sunday can
be maintained as a divine institution only by adopting the rule of faith
acknowledged in the church of Rome, which is, the Bible with the
traditions of the church added thereto. We have seen that in the
sixteenth century the Presbyterians of England were brought to
decide between giving up Sunday as a church festival and
maintaining it as a divine institution by the Bible. They chose the
latter course. Yet while apparently avoiding the charge of observing
a Catholic festival, by claiming to prove the Sunday institution out of
the Bible, the utterly unsatisfactory nature of the several inferences
adduced from the Scriptures in support of that day, compelled them
to resort to the traditions of the church, and to add these to their so-
called biblical evidences in its behalf. It would be no worse to keep
Sunday while frankly acknowledging it to be a festival of the Catholic
church, not commanded in the Bible, than it is to profess that you
observe it as a biblical institution, and then prove it to be such by
adopting the rule of faith of the Romanists. Joaunes Perrone, an
eminent Italian Catholic theologian, in an important doctrinal work,
entitled, “Theological Lessons,” makes a very impressive statement
respecting the acknowledgment of tradition by Protestant Sunday-
keepers. In his chapter “Concerning the Necessity and Existence of
Tradition,” he lays down the proposition that it is necessary to admit
doctrines which we can prove only from tradition, and cannot sustain
from the Holy Scriptures. Then he says:—
“It is not possible, indeed, if traditions of such character are

rejected, that several doctrines, which the Protestants held
with us since they withdrew from the Catholic church, could,
in any possible manner, be established. The fact is placed
beyond a venture of a doubt, for they themselves hold with us
the validity of baptism administered by heretics or infidels, the
validity also of infant baptism, the true form of baptism
[sprinkling]; they held, too, that the law of abstaining from
blood and anything strangled is not in force; also concerning
the substitution of the Lord’s day for the Sabbath; besides
those things which I have mentioned before, and not a few
others.”[1049]
Dr. Bound’s theory of the seventh part of time has found general
acceptance in all those churches which sprung from the church of
Rome. Most forcibly did old Cotton Mather observe:—
“The reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried, some

of them more, some of them less, all of them something, of
Rome with them.”[1050]
One sacred treasure which they all drew from the venerable
mother of harlots is the ancient festival of the sun. She had crushed
out of her communion the Sabbath of the Lord, and having adopted
the venerable day of the sun, had transformed it into the Lord’s day
of the Christian church. The reformed, flying from her communion,
and carrying with them this ancient festival, now found themselves
able to justify its observance as being indeed the veritable Sabbath
of the Lord! As the seamless coat of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath,
was torn from him before he was nailed to the cross, so has the
fourth commandment been torn from the rest-day of the Lord, around
which it was placed by the great Law-giver, and given to this papal
Lord’s day; and this Barabbas the robber, thus arrayed in the stolen
fourth commandment, has from that time to the present day, and with
astonishing success, challenged the obedience of the world as the
divinely appointed Sabbath of the most high God. Here we close the
history of the Sunday festival, now fully transformed into the
Christian Sabbath. A rapid survey of the history of English and
American Sabbath-keepers will conclude this work.
CHAPTER XXVI.
ENGLISH SABBATH-KEEPERS.
English Sabbatarians in the sixteenth century—Their doctrines—John

Trask for these doctrines pilloried, whipt, and imprisoned—He recants
—Character of Mrs. Trask—Her crime—Her indomitable courage—
She suffers fifteen years’ imprisonment, and dies in the prison—
Principles of the Traskites—Brabourne writes in behalf of the seventh
day—Appeals to King Charles I. to restore the ancient Sabbath—The
king employs Dr. White to write against Brabourne, and Dr. Heylyn to
write the History of the Sabbath—The king intimidates Brabourne and
he recants—He returns again to the Sabbath—Philip Tandy—James
Ockford writes “The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment”—His
book burned—Edward Stennett—Wm. Sellers—Cruel Treatment of
Francis Bampfield—Thomas Bampfield—Martyrdom of John James—
How the Sabbath cause was prostrated in England.
Chambers speaks thus of Sabbath-keepers in the sixteenth
century:—
“In the reign of Elizabeth, it occurred to many conscientious

and independent thinkers (as it had previously done to some
Protestants in Bohemia), that the fourth commandment
required of them the observance, not of the first, but of the
specified seventh day of the week, and a strict bodily rest, as
a service then due to God; while others, though convinced
that the day had been altered by divine authority, took up the
same opinion as to the scriptural obligation to refrain from
work. The former class became numerous enough to make a
considerable figure for more than a century in England, under
the title of ‘Sabbatarians’—a word now exchanged for the less
ambiguous appellation of ‘Seventh-day Baptists.’”[1051]
Gilfillan quotes an English writer of the year 1584, John

Stockwood, who says that there were then
“A great diversity of opinion among the vulgar people and
simple sort, concerning the Sabbath day, and the right use of
the same.”
And Gilfillan states one of the grounds of controversy thus:—
“Some maintaining the unchanged and unchangeable

obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath.”[1052]
In 1607, an English first-day writer, John Sprint, gave the views of

the Sabbath-keepers of that time, which in truth have been
substantially the same in all ages:—
“They allege reasons drawn, 1. From the precedence of the

Sabbath before the law, and before the fall; the laws of which
nature are immutable. 2. From the perpetuity of the moral law.
3. And from the large extent thereof appertaining to [the
Sabbath above] all [the other precepts.] 4. ... And of the cause
of [this precept of] the law which maketh it perpetual, which is
the memorial and meditation of the works of God; which
belong unto the Christians as well as to the Jews.”[1053]
John Trask began to speak and write in favor of the seventh day
as the Sabbath of the Lord, about the time that King James I., and
the archbishop of Canterbury, published the famous “Book of Sports
for Sunday,” in 1618. His field of labor was London, and being a very
zealous man, he was soon called to account by the persecuting
authority of the church of England. He took high ground as to the
sufficiency of the Scriptures to direct in all religious services, and that
the civil authorities ought not to constrain men’s consciences in
matters of religion. He was brought before the infamous Star
Chamber, where a long discussion was held respecting the Sabbath.
It was on this occasion that Bishop Andrews first brought forward
that now famous first-day argument, that the early martyrs were
tested by the question, “Hast thou kept the Lord’s day?”[1054]
Gilfillan, quoting the words of cotemporary writers, says of Trask’s
trial that,
“For ‘making of conventicles and factions, by that means

which may tend to sedition and commotion, and for
scandalizing the king, the bishops, and the clergy,’ ‘he was
censured in the Star Chamber to be set upon the pillory at
Westminster, and from thence to be whipt to the fleet, there to
remain a prisoner.’”[1055]
This cruel sentence was carried into execution, and finally broke
his spirit. After enduring the misery of his prison for one year, he
recanted his doctrine.[1056] The case of his wife is worthy of
particular mention. Pagitt gives her character thus:
“She was a woman endued with many particular virtues,

well worthy the imitation of all good Christians, had not error
in other things, especially a spirit of strange unparalleled
opinionativeness and obstinacy in her private conceits,
spoiled her.”[1057]
Pagitt says that she was a school teacher of superior excellence.

She was particularly careful in her dealings with the poor. He gives
her reasons thus:—
“This she professed to do out of conscience, as believing

she must one day come to be judged for all things done in the
flesh. Therefore she resolved to go by the safest rule, rather
against than for her private interest.”[1058]
Pagitt gives her crime in the following words:—
“At last for teaching only five days in the week, and resting
upon Saturday, it being known upon what account she did it,
she was carried to the new prison in Maiden Lane, a place
then appointed for the restraint of several other persons of
different opinions from the church of England.”[1059]
Observe the crime: it was not what she did, for a first-day person
might have done the same, but because she did it to obey the fourth
commandment. Her motive exposed her to the vengeance of the
authorities. She was a woman of indomitable courage, and would not
purchase her liberty by renouncing the Lord’s Sabbath. During her
long imprisonment, Pagitt says that some one wrote her thus:—
“Your constant suffering would be praiseworthy, were it for

truth; but being for error, your recantation will be both more
acceptable to God, and laudable before men.”[1060]
But her faith and patience held out till she was released by death.
“Mrs. Trask lay fifteen or sixteen years a prisoner for her

opinion about the Saturday Sabbath; in all which time she
would receive no relief from anybody, notwithstanding she
wanted much: alleging that it was written, ‘It is more blessed
... to give than to receive.’ Neither would she borrow, because
it was written, ‘Thou shalt lend to many nations, and shalt not
borrow.’ So she deemed it a dishonor to her head, Christ,
either to beg or borrow. Her diet for the most part during her
imprisonment, that is, till a little before her death, was bread
and water, roots and herbs; no flesh, nor wine, nor brewed
drink. All her means was an annuity of forty shillings a year;
what she lacked more to live upon she had of such prisoners
as did employ her sometimes to do business for them.”[1061]
Pagitt, who was the cotemporary of Trask, thus states the

principles of the Sabbatarians of that time, whom he calls Traskites:
—
“The positions concerning the Sabbath by them maintained
were these:—
“1. That the fourth commandment of the Decalogue,
‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy’ [Ex. 20], is a
divine precept, simply and entirely moral, containing nothing
legally ceremonial in whole or in part, and therefore the
weekly observation thereof ought to be perpetual, and to
continue in force and virtue to the world’s end.
“2. That the Saturday, or seventh day in every week, ought
to be an everlasting holy day in the Christian church, and the
religious observation of this day obligeth Christians under the
gospel, as it did the Jews before the coming of Christ.
“3. That the Sunday, or Lord’s day, is an ordinary working
day, and it is superstition and will-worship to make the same
the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.”[1062]
It was for this noble confession of faith that Mrs. Trask was shut up
in prison till the day of her death. For the same, Mr. Trask was
compelled to stand in the pillory, and was whipped from thence to
the fleet, and then shut up in a wretched prison, from which he
escaped by recantation after enduring its miseries for more than a
year.[1063]
Mr. Utter mentions the next Sabbatarian minister as follows:—
“Theophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in

the established church, wrote a book, which was printed at
London in 1628, wherein he argued ‘that the Lord’s day is not
the Sabbath day by divine institution,’ but ‘that the seventh-
day Sabbath is now in force.’ Mr. Brabourne published
another book in 1632, entitled, ‘A Defense of that most
Ancient and Sacred Ordinance of God’s, the Sabbath
Day.’”[1064]
Brabourne dedicated his book to King Charles I., requesting him to
use his royal authority for the restoration of the ancient Sabbath. But
those who put their trust in princes are sure to be disappointed. Dr. F.
White, bishop of Ely, thus states the occasion of his own work
against the Sabbath:—
“Now because this Brabourne’s treatise of the Sabbath was

dedicated to his Royal Majesty, and the principles upon which
he grounded all his arguments (being commonly preached,
printed, and believed throughout the kingdom), might have
poisoned and infected many people either with this
Sabbatarian error, or with some other of like quality; it was the
king, our gracious master, his will and pleasure, that a treatise
should be set forth, to prevent further mischief, and to settle
his good subjects (who have long time been distracted about
Sabbatarian questions) in the old and good way of the ancient
and orthodoxal Catholic church. Now that which his sacred
Majesty commanded, I have by your Grace’s direction
[Archbishop Laud] obediently performed.”[1065]
The king not only wished by this appointment to overthrow those

who kept the day enjoined in the commandment, but also those who
by means of Dr. Bound’s new theory pretended that Sunday was that
day. He therefore joined Dr. Heylyn with Bishop White in this work:—
“Which burden being held of too great weight for any one to
undergo, and the necessity of the work requiring a quick
dispatch, it was held fit to divide the employment betwixt two.
The argumentative and scholastical part was referred to the
right learned Dr. White, then bishop of Ely, who had given
good proof of his ability in polemical matters in several books
and disputations against the papists. The practical and
historical [was to be written], by Heylyn of Westminster, who
had gained some reputation for his studies in the ancient
writers.”[1066]
The works of White and Heylyn were published simultaneously in
1635. Dr. White, in addressing himself to those who enforce Sunday
observance by the fourth commandment, speaks thus of
Brabourne’s arguments, that not Sunday, but the ancient seventh
day, is there enjoined:—
“Maintaining your own principles that the fourth

commandment is purely and simply moral and of the law of
nature, it will be impossible for you either in English or in
Latin, to solve Theophilus Brabourne’s objections.”[1067]
But the king had something besides argument for Brabourne. He

was brought before Archbishop Laud and the court of High
Commission, and, moved by the fate of Mrs. Trask, he submitted for
the time to the authority of the church of England, but sometime
afterward wrote other books in behalf of the seventh day.[1068] Dr.
White’s book has this pithy notice of the indefinite-time theory:—
“Because an indefinite time must either bind to all moments

of time, as a debt, when the day of payment is not expressly
dated, is liable to payment every moment; or else it binds to
no time at all.”[1069]
Mr. Utter, after the statement of Brabourne’s case, continues thus:

—
“About this time Philip Tandy began to promulgate in the

northern part of England the same doctrine concerning the
Sabbath. He was educated in the established church, of
which he became a minister. Having changed his views
respecting the mode of baptism and the day of the Sabbath,
he abandoned that church and ‘became a mark for many
shots.’ He held several public disputes about his peculiar
sentiments, and did much to propagate them. James Ockford
was another early advocate in England of the claims of the
seventh day as the Sabbath. He appears to have been well
acquainted with the discussions in which Trask and
Brabourne had been engaged. Being dissatisfied with the
pretended conviction of Brabourne, he wrote a book in
defense of Sabbatarian views, entitled, ‘The Doctrine of the
Fourth Commandment.’ This book, published about the year
1642, was burnt by order of the authorities in the established
church.”[1070]
The famous Stennett family furnished, for four generations, a

succession of able Sabbatarian ministers. Mr. Edward Stennett, the
first of these, was born about the beginning of the seventeenth
century. His work entitled, “The Royal Law Contended For,” was first
published at London in 1658. “He was an able and devoted minister,
but dissenting from the established church, he was deprived of the
means of support.” “He suffered much of the persecution which the
Dissenters were exposed to at that time, and more especially for his
faithful adherence to the cause of the Sabbath. For this truth he
experienced tribulation, not only from those in power, by whom he
was kept a long time in prison, but also much distress from
unfriendly, dissenting brethren, who strove to destroy his influence,
and ruin his cause.” In 1664, he published a work entitled, “The
Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord.”[1071] In 1671, Wm. Sellers
wrote a work in behalf of the seventh day in reply to Dr. Owen. Cox
states its object thus:—
“In opposition to the opinion that some one day in seven is

all that the fourth commandment requires to be set apart, the
writer maintains the obligation of the Saturday Sabbath on the
ground that ‘God himself directly in the letter of the text calls
the seventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to
one and the selfsame day, as all men know that ever read the
commandments.’”[1072]
One of the most eminent Sabbatarian ministers of the last half of

the seventeenth century was Francis Bampfield. He was originally a
clergyman of the church of England. The Baptist historian, Crosby,
speaks of him thus:—
“But being utterly unsatisfied in his conscience with the

conditions of conformity, he took his leave of his sorrowful and
weeping congregation in ... 1662, and was quickly after
imprisoned for worshiping God in his own family. So soon was
his unshaken loyalty to the king forgotten, ... that he was more
frequently imprisoned and exposed to greater hardships for
his nonconformity, than most other dissenters.”[1073]
Of his imprisonment, Neale says:—
“After the act of uniformity, he continued preaching as he

had opportunity in private, till he was imprisoned for five days
and nights, with twenty-five of his hearers in one room ...
where they spent their time in religious exercises, but after
some time he was released. Soon after, he was apprehended
again and lay nine years in Dorchester jail, though he was a
person of unshaken loyalty to the king.”[1074]
During his imprisonment, he preached almost every day, and

gathered a church even under his confinement. And when he was at
liberty, he ceased not to preach in the name of Jesus. After his
release, he went to London, where he preached with much success.
[1075] Neale says of his labors in that city:—
“When he resided in London he formed a church on the

principles of the Sabbatarian Baptists, at Pinner’s hall, of
which principles he was a zealous asserter. He was a
celebrated preacher, and a man of serious piety.”[1076]
On Feb. 17, 1682, he was arrested while preaching, and on March

28, was sentenced to forfeit all his goods and to be imprisoned in
Newgate for life. In consequence of the hardships which he suffered
in that prison, he died, Feb. 16, 1683.[1077] “Bampfield,” says Wood,
“dying in the said prison of Newgate ... aged seventy years, his body
was ... followed with a very great company of factious and
schismatical people to his grave.”[1078] Crosby says of him:—
“All that knew him will acknowledge that he was a man of

great piety. And he would in all probability have preserved the
same character, with respect to his learning and judgment,
had it not been for his opinion in two points, viz., that infants
ought not to be baptized, and that the Jewish Sabbath ought
still to be kept.”[1079]
Mr. Bampfield published two works in behalf of the seventh day as

the Sabbath, one in 1672, the other in 1677. In the first of these he
thus sets forth the doctrine of the Sabbath:—
“The law of the seventh-day Sabbath was given before the

law was proclaimed at Sinai, even from the creation, given to
Adam, ... and in him to all the world.[1080]... The Lord Christ’s
obedience unto this fourth word in observing in his lifetime the
seventh day as a weekly Sabbath day, ... and no other day of
the week as such, is a part of that perfect righteousness
which every sound believer doth apply to himself in order to
his being justified in the sight of God; and every such person
is to conform unto Christ in all the acts of his obedience to the
ten words.”[1081]
His brother, Mr. Thomas Bampfield, who had been speaker in one
of Cromwell’s parliaments, wrote also in behalf of seventh-day
observance, and was imprisoned for his religious principles in
Ilchester jail.[1082] About the time of Mr. Bampfield’s first
imprisonment, severe persecution arose against the Sabbath-
keepers in London. Crosby thus bears testimony:—
“It was about this time [a. d. 1661], that a congregation of
Baptists holding the seventh day as a Sabbath, being
assembled at their meeting-house in Bull-stake alley, the
doors being open, about three o’clock p. m. [Oct. 19], whilst
Mr. John James was preaching, one Justice Chard, with Mr.
Wood, an headborough, came into the meeting-place. Wood
commanded him in the king’s name to be silent and come
down, having spoken treason against the king. But Mr.
James, taking little or no notice thereof, proceeded in his
work. The headborough came nearer to him in the middle of
the meeting-place and commanded him again in the king’s
name to come down or else he would pull him down;
whereupon the disturbance grew so great that he could not
proceed.”[1083]
The officer having pulled him down from the pulpit, led him away
to the court under a strong guard. Mr. Utter continues this narrative
as follows:—
“Mr. James was himself examined and committed to

Newgate, on the testimony of several profligate witnesses,
who accused him of speaking treasonable words against the
king. His trial took place about a month afterward, at which he
conducted himself in such a manner as to create much
sympathy. He was, however, sentenced to be hanged, drawn
and quartered.[1084] This awful sentence did not dismay him
in the least. He calmly said, ‘Blessed be God; whom man
condemneth, God justifieth.’ While he lay in prison, under
sentence of death, many persons of distinction visited him,
who were greatly affected by his piety and resignation, and
offered to exert themselves to secure his pardon. But he
seems to have had little hope of their success. Mrs. James,
by advice of her friends, twice presented petitions to the king
[Charles II.], setting forth the innocence of her husband, the
character of the witnesses against him, and entreating His
Majesty to grant a pardon. In both instances she was
repulsed with scoffs and ridicule. At the scaffold, on the day of
his execution, Mr. James addressed the assembly in a very
noble and affecting manner. Having finished his address, and
kneeling down, he thanked God for covenant mercies, and for
conscious innocence; he prayed for the witnesses against
him, for the executioner, for the people of God, for the
removal of divisions, for the coming of Christ, for the
spectators, and for himself, that he might enjoy a sense of
God’s favor and presence, and an entrance into glory. When
he had ended, the executioner said, ‘The Lord receive your
soul;’ to which Mr. James replied, ‘I thank thee.’ A friend
observing to him, ‘This is a happy day,’ he answered, ‘I bless
God it is.’ Then having thanked the sheriff for his courtesy, he
said, ‘Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.’... After he was
dead his heart was taken out and burned, his quarters were
affixed to the gates of the city, and his head was set up in
White chapel on a pole opposite to the alley in which his
meeting-house stood.”[1085]
Such was the experience of English Sabbath-keepers in the

seventeenth century. It cost something to obey the fourth
commandment in such times as those. The laws of England during
that century were very oppressive to all Dissenters, and bore
exceedingly hard upon the Sabbath-keepers. But God raised up able
men, eminent for piety, to defend his truth during those troublous
times, and, if need be, to seal their testimony with their blood. In the
seventeenth century, eleven churches of Sabbatarians flourished in
England, while many scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be found in
various parts of that kingdom. Now, but three of these churches are
in existence! And only remnants, even of these, remain!
To what cause shall we assign this painful fact? It is not because
their adversaries were able to confute their doctrine; for the
controversial works on both sides still remain, and speak for
themselves. It is not that they lacked men of piety and of learning; for
God gave them these, especially in the seventeenth century. Nor is it
that fanaticism sprang up and disgraced the cause; for there is no
record of anything of this kind. They were cruelly persecuted, but the
period of their persecution was that of their greatest prosperity. Like
Moses’ bush, they stood unconsumed in the burning fire. The
prostration of the Sabbath cause in England is due to none of these
things.
The Sabbath was wounded in the house of its own friends. They
took upon themselves the responsibility, after a time, of making the
Sabbath of no practical importance, and of treating its violation as no
very serious transgression of the law of God. Doubtless they hoped
to win men to Christ and his truth by this course; but, instead of this,
they simply lowered the standard of divine truth into the dust. The
Sabbath-keeping ministers assumed the pastoral care of first-day
churches, in some cases as their sole charge, in others, they did this
in connection with the oversight of Sabbatarian churches. The result
need surprise no one; as these Sabbath-keeping ministers and
churches said to all men, in thus acting, that the fourth
commandment might be broken with impunity, the people took them
at their word. Mr. Crosby, a first-day historian, sets this matter in a
clear light:—
“If the seventh day ought to be observed as the Christian

Sabbath, then all congregations that observe the first day as
such must be Sabbath-breakers.... I must leave those
gentlemen on the contrary side to their own sentiments; and
to vindicate the practice of becoming pastors to a people
whom in their conscience they must believe to be breakers of
the Sabbath.”[1086]
Doubtless there have been noble exceptions to this course; but

the body of English Sabbatarians for many years have failed to
faithfully discharge the high trust committed to them.
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE SABBATH IN AMERICA.
The first Sabbath-keeping church in America—Names of its members—

Origin of the second—Organization of the Seventh-day Baptist
General Conference—Statistics of the Denomination at that time—
Nature of its organization—Present Statistics—Educational facilities—
Missionary work—The American Sabbath Tract Society—
Responsibility for the light of the Sabbath—The German S. D.
Baptists of Pennsylvania—Reference to Sabbath-keepers in Hungary
—In Siberia—The Seventh-day Adventists—Their origin—Labors of
Joseph Bates—Of James White—The Publishing Association—
Systematic Benevolence—The work of the preachers mainly in new
fields—Organization of the S. D. Adventists—Statistics—Peculiarities
of their faith—Their object—The S. D. Adventists of Switzerland—
Why the Sabbath is of priceless value to mankind—The nations of the
saved observe the Sabbath in the new earth.
The first Sabbatarian church in America originated at Newport, R.
I. The first Sabbath-keeper in America was Stephen Mumford, who
left London three years after the martyrdom of John James, and
forty-four years after the landing of the pilgrim fathers at Plymouth.
Mr. Mumford, it appears, came as a missionary from the English
Sabbath-keepers.[1087] Mr. Isaac Backus, the historian of the early
New England Baptists, makes the following record:—
“Stephen Mumford came over from London in 1664, and

brought the opinion with him that the whole of the ten
commandments, as they were delivered from Mount Sinai,
were moral and immutable; and that it was the Antichristian
power which thought to change times and laws, that changed
the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week.
Several members of the first church in Newport embraced this
sentiment, and yet continued with the church for some years,
until two men and their wives who had so done, turned back
to the keeping of the first day again.”[1088]
Mr. Mumford, on his arrival, went earnestly to work to convert men
to the observance of the fourth commandment, as we infer from the
following record:—
“Stephen Mumford, the first Sabbath-keeper in America,

came from London in 1664. Tacy Hubbard commenced
keeping the Sabbath, March 11, 1665. Samuel Hubbard
commenced April 1, 1665. Rachel Langworthy, January 15,
1666. Roger Baxter, April 15, 1666, and William Hiscox, April
28, 1666. These were the first Sabbath-keepers in America. A
controversy, lasting several years, sprung up between them
and members of the church. They desired to retain their
connection with the church, but were, at last, compelled to
withdraw, that they might peaceably enjoy and keep God’s
holy day.”[1089] [Baxter is Baster in the S. D. B. Memorial.]
Though Mr. Mumford faithfully taught the truth, he seems to have

cherished the ideas of the English Sabbatarians, that it was possible
for first-day and seventh-day observers to walk together in church
fellowship. Had the first-day people been of the same mind, the light
of the Sabbath would have been extinguished within a few years, as
the history of English Sabbath-keepers clearly proves. But, in the
providence of God, the danger was averted by the opposition which
these commandment-keepers had to encounter.
Besides the persons above enumerated, four others embraced the
Sabbath in 1666, but in 1668 they renounced it. These four were
also members of the first-day Baptist church of Newport. Though the
Sabbath-keepers who retained their integrity thought that they might
lawfully commune with the members of the church who were fully
persuaded to observe the first day, yet they felt otherwise with
respect to these who had clearly seen the Sabbath, and had for a
time observed it, and then apostatized from it. These persons “both
wrote and spoke against it, which so grieved them that they could
not sit down at the table of the Lord with them, nor with the church
because of them.” But as they were members of a first-day church,
and had “no power to deal with them as of themselves without the
help of the church,” they “found themselves barred as to proceeding
with them, as being but private brethren. So they concluded not to
bring the case to the church to judge of the fact, viz., in turning from
the observation of the seventh day, being contrary-minded as to
that.” They therefore sent to the London Sabbath-keepers for advice,
and in the mean time refrained from communing with the church.
Dr. Edward Stennet wrote them in behalf of the London Sabbath-
keepers: “If the church will hold communion with these apostates
from the truth, you ought then to desire to be fairly dismissed from
the church; which if the church refuse, you ought to withdraw
yourselves.”[1090] They decided, however, not to leave the church.
But they told “the church publicly that they could not have
comfortable communion with those four persons that had sinned.”
“And thus for several months they walked with little or no offense
from the church; after which the leading or ministering brethren
began to declare themselves concerning the ten precepts.” Mr. Tory
“declared the law to be done away.” Mr. Luker and Mr. Clarke “made
it their work to preach the non-observation of the law, day after day.”
But the Sabbath-keepers replied “that the ten precepts were still as
holy, just, good, and spiritual, as ever.” Mr. Tory “with some
unpleasant words said ‘that their tune was only the fourth precept,’ to
which they answered, ‘that the whole ten precepts were of equal
force with them, and that they did not plead for one without the
other.’ And they for several years, went on with the church in a
halvish kind of fellowship.”[1091]
Mr. Bailey thus states the result:—
“At the time of their change of sentiment and practice,

[respecting the Bible Sabbath], they had no intention of
establishing a church with this distinctive feature. God,
evidently, had a different mission for them, and brought them
to it, through the severe trial of persecution. They were forced
to leave the fellowship of the Baptist church, or abandon the
Sabbath of the Lord their God.”[1092]
“These left the Baptist church on December 7, 1671.”[1093]
“On the 23d of December, just sixteen days after
withdrawing from the Baptist church, they covenanted
together in a church organization.”[1094]
Such was the origin of the first Sabbath-keeping church in

America.[1095] The second of these churches owes its origin to this
circumstance: About the year 1700, Edmund Dunham of Piscataway,
N. J., reproved a person for labor on Sunday. He was asked for his
authority from the Scriptures. On searching for this, he became
satisfied that the seventh day is the only weekly Sabbath in the
Bible, and began to observe it.
“Soon after, others followed his example, and in 1707 a

Seventh-day Baptist church was organized, with seventeen
members. Edmund Dunham was chosen pastor and sent to
Rhode Island to receive ordination.”[1096]
The S. D. Baptist General Conference was organized in 1802. At

its first annual session, it included in its organization eight churches,
nine ordained ministers, and 1130 members.[1097] The Conference
was organized with only advisory powers, the individual churches
retaining the matters of discipline and church government in their
own hands.[1098] The Conference now embraces some eighty
churches, and about 8000 members. These churches are found in
most of the northern and western States, and are divided into five
associations, which, however, have no legislative nor disciplinary
power over the churches which compose them. There are, belonging
to the denomination, five academies, one college, “and a university
with academic, collegiate, mechanical, and theological departments
in operation.”[1099] The S. D. Baptist missionary society sustains
several home missionaries who labor principally on the western and
southern borders of the denomination. They have within a few years
past met with a good degree of success in this work. It has also a
missionary station at Shanghai, China, and a small church there of
faithful Christians.

(Download PDF) Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in The Second Century Ad Christian Niederhuber Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

(Download PDF) Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in The Second Century Ad Christian Niederhuber Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Download PDF) Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in The Second Century Ad Christian Niederhuber Full Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in the

Second Century AD Christian

Roman Imperial Portrait Practice in the Second Century

Humanism and Empire: The Imperial Ideal in Fourteenth-

Post-Roman Kingdoms: ‘Dark Ages' Gaul & Britain, AD

Occult Imperium: Arturo Reghini, Roman Traditionalism,

Imperial Power, Provincial Government, and the

Projecting Imperial Power: New Nineteenth Century

Chronicling Westerners in Nineteenth-Century East Asia:

Imperial Ladies of the Ottonian Dynasty: Women and Rule

other titles in the series include:

Marcus Aurelius and Faustina the

Portraits of Roman emperors and their immediate family members

1. Introduction: aims and methods

2. Faustina: imperial coins and medallions

3. Faustina: marble portraits

5. Marcus Aurelius: imperial coins and medallions

6. Marcus Aurelius: marble portraits

7. Marcus Aurelius: discussion

8. Organization of the mint of Rome and system of production

9. Metropolitan marble technology and marble workshops

10. Imperial portrait practice: norms and models in the second

Appendix: Portrait Lists of Faustina and Marcus Aurelius

1. Marcus Aurelius. Aureus, ad 157 (TRP XI). Courtesy of Numismatica Ars

2.1 Concordance of Faustina’s portrait types

BMCRE IV H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British

It has long been recognized that the portraits of Roman emperors

The text passage tells us that imperial portraits were ubiquitous,

Research on the phenomenon of ‘replicated’ imperial portraits has

Non-type imperial portraits

Traditional model of an imperial portrait ‘system’

Significance of method and model for modern

B. RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AIMS, AND SCOPE

To approach the portrait practices and processes of creation,

Aims and scope

C. METHODOLOGY AND MATERIAL

The research questions will be investigated on a broad material

“For by inculcating to the people these new Sabbath

“It is not possible, indeed, if traditions of such character are

“The reforming churches, flying from Rome, carried, some

English Sabbatarians in the sixteenth century—Their doctrines—John

“In the reign of Elizabeth, it occurred to many conscientious

Gilfillan quotes an English writer of the year 1584, John

And Gilfillan states one of the grounds of controversy thus:—

“Some maintaining the unchanged and unchangeable

In 1607, an English first-day writer, John Sprint, gave the views of

“They allege reasons drawn, 1. From the precedence of the

“For ‘making of conventicles and factions, by that means

“She was a woman endued with many particular virtues,

Pagitt says that she was a school teacher of superior excellence.

“This she professed to do out of conscience, as believing

Pagitt gives her crime in the following words:—

“Your constant suffering would be praiseworthy, were it for

“Mrs. Trask lay fifteen or sixteen years a prisoner for her

Pagitt, who was the cotemporary of Trask, thus states the

“Theophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in

“Now because this Brabourne’s treatise of the Sabbath was

The king not only wished by this appointment to overthrow those