Nerva's principatus was short – just over 16 months – and it fell between two long reigns that may be counted among the defining periods of Roman history: the “tyranny” of Domitian (81–96 CE) and the imperium of Trajan (98–117).Footnote ¹ In view of the brevity of Nerva's rule, the quantity of coinage struck in his name is astounding. However, the Roman mint was not only productive, but also very creative in Nerva's days. Several of the sestertius types then issued are among the most famous Roman imperial coin types, because they are perceived as prime examples of “historical” coins, containing (seemingly) precise information on specific measures of the emperor: for example, PLEBEI VRBANAE FRVMENTO CONSTITVTO, VEHICVLATIONE ITALIAE REMISSA, and FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA.

These prominent coin types are mentioned in all historical studies of Nerva's reign, and they are also typically featured in basic introductory textbooks on Roman numismatics. Yet, the last overall in-depth study of Nerva's coinage was published more than a century ago by A. Merlin.Footnote ² Hence, a new examination of these coins has long been overdue; N. Elkins is to be congratulated on choosing an excellent topic for his book.

Most unusually, the monograph opens with a dedication to its subject: Divo Nervae. The author – who clearly has a lot of sympathy for the emperor whose coins he studied – describes his aim as follows:

While it is at times evident to the reader that E. strongly feels that Nerva has been treated unfairly by historians – ancient and modern alike (see 137) – he does not fall into the trap of trying to rehabilitate “his” emperor on the basis of numismatic sources. It is important to stress, however, that this is not a new historical study of Nerva's reign. Many of the key problems surrounding it, often hotly debated by historians, are just touched upon, at best: e.g., Nerva's role in the conspiracy against Domitian or the precise circumstances of the adoption of Trajan in 97 CE. Instead, the clearly defined main goal of this book is to make full use of the imperial coinage, “the most complete record of art from Nerva's reign” (ix), for analyzing the representation of the emperor and his principate during his brief rule, and for reconstructing and examining the public discourse of his time by contextualizing the numismatic material with the help of literary and archaeological sources.

There is no modern reference work for Nerva's imperial coinage. The pertinent volumes of the numismatic standard references Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) and Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum (BMCRE) are outdated, and the volume on Nerva and Trajan for RIC is currently being revised by me. E. devised an excellent and methodologically sound way of dealing with this challenging situation. His numismatic analysis is based on brief tabular overviews of Nerva's imperial coinage that he put together mainly on the basis of published material, but also a certain amount of unpublished material, indicating which reverse types were struck in which denominations and in which phases of Nerva's principate (see Appendices 1–2, 155–64). Furthermore, E. is to be applauded for taking the relative frequency of the different denarius types of Nerva's rule into account in his analysis, which allows him to judge the diverse impact that common and rare reverse types might have had: the basis is a combined dataset of the representation of Nerva's denarii in the Reka Devnia hoard, in an aggregate of smaller hoards, and in various groups of single finds (Appendix 3, 165–74). In addition to this, E. carefully charts the occurrence of base metal types of Nerva in hoards and among single finds and excavation coins in continental Europe and Britain, in order to be able to visualize differences in the regional distribution of the material (Appendix 4, 175–80).

This approach clearly has a lot of potential. The famous case of Nerva's enigmatic asses with the reverse legend NEPTVNO CIRCENS CONSTITVT (BMCRE 132) nicely demonstrates the unevenness of the geographical distribution of certain types from his principate, because there is a concentration of attested find spots of these rare pieces in Britain. In a recent specialized study, 16 specimens of the coin type from public and private collections could be documented, of which 4 have a secure English provenance, a further 3 were probably found in Great Britain, and 1 is from France.Footnote ³ However, just one of these specimens – the most recently detected as of this type, registered with the Portable Antiquities Scheme (ID: LVPL-716282) – is part of the dataset put together for this book (178). This example may highlight that, despite E.'s huge effort, the find data for bronzes currently available is often not statistically significant. Also, the highly uneven coverage of different parts of the empire as regards published coin finds often makes it difficult to compare regions in a statistically sound way, so that one must exercise the utmost caution in reconstructing regional audience-targeting on the basis of the published data, as E. himself readily admits (175; see also 93–101). Still, E. is keen on stressing the importance of quantitative and finds-based methods for his approach (14).

Before focusing on the structure of the book and a few more specific research questions, some general comments on the scope of the work and E.'s general understanding of the material seem necessary. Despite its rather general title, a “reevaluation of Nerva's imperial coinage” is at the heart of the volume (3). The regional and local coinages of the Roman Empire play only a very minor role here, and in general only series that seem to have a closer connection to the urban mint are taken into account, namely the cistophori, which may have been produced in Rome for circulation in Asia Minor under Nerva, as well as the silver issues of Caesarea in Cappadocia, in part closely copying imperial prototypes. E. repeatedly suggests that the latter coins may have been struck at Rome for circulation in Asia Minor too (41, 111, 119), but actually neither style nor metallurgy are in favor of this hypothesis.Footnote ⁴ While the exclusion of most provincial coins is justified by E. with the book's focus on Rome and the creation of imperial iconography in the capital city (11 n28), many readers may regret this decision, especially in view of the current boom in research on Roman provincial coinages. In this context, it may be mentioned that Merlin had to some extent been ahead of his time by devoting a sizable part of his book on Nerva's coins to regional and provincial issues.Footnote ⁵

A particular strength of E.'s approach to the material – in my view – is his consistent application of a model developed, most notably, by B. Levick,Footnote ⁶ according to which, generally speaking, “the emperor was not the agent who governed the selection of coin types” (7; see also 92). Instead, mint officials seem to have been behind the type selection (139–40). In this way, “imperial art, built monuments, and the coinage” may be seen as “similar to contemporary panegyric and poetry, which also had the emperor among their audiences” (7). For E., coins are primarily a medium celebrating the emperor, and not a medium used by the emperor to send his own messages to the inhabitants of the Empire. In several passages of the book, this particular way of looking at the numismatic material enables E. to make valid observations on the coin iconography; in addition, the contextualization of the coin types contributes to putting the longstanding debate in scholarship about the “propaganda” function of Roman coinage into perspective. Clearly, the purpose of the texts and images on imperial coins was very different from 20th-c. “agitation propaganda”: they did not appeal to the public for support of a particular cause, nor were they intended to “convince” or “persuade” anybody. Rather, the messages about imperial rule that were formulated on the coins (as in other media) served to flatter the emperor, and also to bolster and reinforce preexisting “public perceptions and expectations of imperial rule” (12).

The volume starts off with a substantive introduction, laying out E.'s general approach and the main concepts guiding his treatment of the material, some of which have just been mentioned (“The power of images in the reign of Nerva,” 1–23). The structure of the main part of the book is not chronological, but thematic, grouping essays on the various reverse types of Nerva's imperial coinage around three main topics: “Nerva as supreme military commander” (Chapter 1, 24–51); “Nerva, the Senate and people of Rome, and Italy” (Chapter 2, 52–101); “Nerva and the Roman Empire” (Chapter 3, 102–36). The volume is rounded off by a conclusion pulling together the main results of the study (“The visualization of political rhetoric,” 137–54), the aforementioned appendices containing the data that underpins the analysis, an index (201–7), and an exhaustive bibliography (181–99) going back to J. Eckhel's foundational work Doctrina numorum veterum, published at the end of the 18th c.Footnote ⁷

In his overview of the denominational system of Nerva's imperial currency (9), E. follows the postulate of H. Mattingly that below the as just one denomination of small bronzes was issued, the quadrans (quarter-as). Sadly, Mattingly's influential reconstruction is fundamentally flawed, in that he failed to recognize that not one, but two different denominations of small bronzes were issued under Nerva, just as under Trajan: apart from copper quadrantes depicting a modius and a winged caduceus, there was also a heavier and larger denomination with a diameter of 18/19 mm, featuring a draped female bust on the obverse, apparently Juno, and a rudder on globe on the reverse (Fig. 1). These coins, which – on pieces without or with an incomplete patina – may be seen to have been struck of golden orichalcum, are in fact semisses (half-asses).Footnote ⁸

Fig. 1.

Nerva, semis: BMCRE III, Nerva 146 (2.62 g, 6 h, diam. 19 mm). British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals. (© The Trustees of the British Museum.)

A welcome feature of the introduction are charts visualizing the different quantities of coinage struck in Nerva's six emissions (20–21, figs. 1.3–1.5). It should be noted, though, that the different length of the time periods during which these emissions were produced is the key factor for their different sizes. The third emission, the largest for both precious and base metal issues, was also by far the longest, with a maximum time frame of January to September 97, while for example the second, fifth, and sixth emissions were extremely short, at just about a month each. A differentiation of the relative length of the single emissions in the charts might have assisted the reader in realizing this.

At the beginning of Chapter 1, where commentaries on all the coin reverses with military associations are gathered, the historical background is sketched out, albeit in a somewhat unsatisfactory way. That the author refrains from speculating on Nerva's potential involvement in the plot against Domitian is understandable (24–25). However, other omissions are unfortunate. There is no mention of the bid for the throne by M. Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatius Maternus, the governor of Syria, Domitian's most highly decorated general, and the Praetorians’ preferred candidate, as modern research has established: his bid was preempted by a quick coup by a group of senators around Sex. Iulius Frontinus and L. Iulius Ursus, which is equally passed over in silence. Trajan is presented as an “excellent candidate for the governorship of Upper Germany” (26), despite the demonstration by historians that he was apparently lacking the military experience normally required for this position, and that his appointment is explicable only against the background of the said coup.Footnote ⁹ This nomination and the adoption of Trajan are interpreted as “active steps” taken by Nerva “to secure his own position and the stability and continuity of the Roman government” (47), although it seems unlikely in the extreme that Nerva was able to act by his own free will, in this phase of his rule. Instead of reflecting current knowledge about the history of this period, the account presented follows the version of events as it was propagated by the Trajanic government, presumably in order to conceal the true circumstances of Trajan's rise to power.

All this has a bearing on our understanding of the Trajanic administration's attitude toward Nerva. This is a most interesting problem, with considerable numismatic implications.Footnote ¹⁰ It is a pity that E. has decided not to discuss the public image of the Divus Nerva at all, to whom he has dedicated his monograph. Not least because of the apparently somewhat dubious events surrounding Trajan's adoption and seizure of power, Nerva was not deemed to be a suitable ideological point of reference for Trajan, who instead preferred to promote the concept that Jupiter had chosen him to rule – a kind of Trajanic Gottesgnadentum. Trajan kept Nerva's name as part of his own imperial name, but other than that he distanced himself from his adoptive father. Nerva's consecration immediately after his death, noted in the literary sources, was not featured on the contemporary coins of Trajan, and the establishment of the new cult was not announced. The Divus Nerva appeared only much later on Trajan's coins, at a time when the new ruler, in an unprecedented step, had deified his biological father, who had not been an emperor, under the name of Divus Pater Traianus.

But back to Chapter 1, in which E. successfully interprets the CONCORDIA EXERCITVVM coin types of Nerva depicting clasped hands (sometimes in front of a military eagle surmounting the prow of a ship) as a general message of military stability in the empire, not specifically targeted at a certain group of the populace (48–50). He wisely excludes a controversial coin type, known in very few examples and accepted as genuine by Mattingly, as a “modern forgery” (39): further research on these pieces by me has shown that the PAX AVGVSTI coins of Nerva are early modern fakes, first attested in a publication of the year 1601. The reverse type, showing Roma and the emperor clasping hands, is borrowed from bronzes of Vitellius. Not only denarii, but also one aureus of this type could be documented; most unusually, the denarii all seem to have been overstruck on Roman Republican pieces, probably at some time in the 16th c.Footnote ¹¹

In Chapter 2, dealing with the reverses that relate to the Senate and people of Rome and Italy, some of the best-known coin types of Nerva mentioned at the beginning of this review are discussed. The interpretation of the rare and impressive PLEBEI VRBANAE FRVMENTO CONSTITVTO sestertii as referencing an extraordinary distribution of grain seems convincing (59); however, frumento … constituto should not be understood as indicating a “promise,” but rather an allocation of grain. By the same token, the similarly phrased legend NEPTVNO CIRCENS(ibus) CONSTITVT(is) should not be taken to refer to “promised Circus games to Neptune” (thus 62), but rather to the establishment of games in honor of Neptune. Note that constituere was something like a technical term in this context: e.g., urbem Nicopolim apud Actium condidit ludosque illic quinquennales constituit (“He founded the city of Nicopolis near Actium and established quinquennial games there”; Suet. Aug. 18.2). The reverse of these coins depicts the god Neptune, accompanied by a Triton. The god is holding a trident and an aplustre (not a ship's prow: 61).

The rarest denarius reverse of Nerva, issued exclusively in the brief second emission of December 96 CE (COS II DESIGN III), shows a dynamic depiction of Diana venatrix with a hunting dog; the goddess is shown in an almost full-frontal posture, looking at the viewer, holding her bow in the left hand and drawing an arrow from the quiver at the back with her right hand (Fig. 2). E. tries to pin down a prototype for this beautiful reverse, tentatively proposing a unique coin type of the civil wars after Nero's death as a model (65–66, with fig. 2.12).Footnote ¹² This denarius type of the second half of the 1st c. CE is not, however, a new creation: it directly copies the images of a denarius type of Augustus struck at Lugdunum in 11–10 BCE, with an IMP XII dating (see Fig. 3). This type was issued after the mint had switched to a laureate head of the emperor for the obverses of the precious metal coins; at that time it also operated a stylistic and typological makeover of the reverse types Apollo, butting bull, and Diana, which in principle had been used since the IMP X period.Footnote ¹³ In the new version that concerns us here, Diana appears in archaizing style.Footnote ¹⁴ A comparison of the two coin images demonstrates that the Augustan reverse is not at all “similar to Nerva's denarii” showing Diana (thus E., 65): note the different perspective, the difference in headdress and costume and the absence of the dog on the Augustan coins. The extraordinary Diana reverse type of Nerva is, in fact, a one-off in imperial coinage.Footnote ¹⁵

Fig. 2.

Nerva, denarius: BMCRE III, Nerva 22 (3.06 g, 6 h, diam. 18 mm). British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals. (© The Trustees of the British Museum.)

Fig. 3.

Augustus, denarius: RIC I (2nd ed.), Augustus 197a (3.74 g, 7 h, diam. 21 mm). Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18207640. https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18207640. (Reinhard Saczewski. © Berlin Coin Cabinet.)

Regarding the famous VEHICVLATIONE ITALIAE REMISSA sestertii (71–72), it should be noted that the word vehiculatio is a hapax legomenon in ancient Latin, attested exclusively in this coin legend of Nerva. Also, the imperial measure celebrated by these coins, the remission of the burdens of the imperial courier system in Italy, is known only from this coin type – momentous sestertii indeed! E.'s treatment of the FISCI IVDAICI CALVMNIA SVBLATA sestertii (84–88) and their clear anti-Domitianic tendency must be singled out as particularly lucid: E. purposefully discusses them immediately before the ROMA RENASCENS sestertii, conveying a related message: the rebirth of Rome under Nerva, after the end of Domitian's tyranny (88–90). In a poem by Martial (11.3.9), Nerva was cast as Augustus restored to the earth – a passage fittingly interpreted by E. in the context of the restored coins of Nerva, focusing completely on the Divus Augustus (see 69 and 76–83; the date of these coins is uncertain). E.'s treatment of Nerva's PROVIDENTIA SENATVS sestertii (90–92) may now be read in conjunction with a new discussion of the PROVID denarii of Trajan.Footnote ¹⁶

Chapter 3 – “Nerva and the Roman Empire” – is, in my opinion, the best part of the monograph. Its importance rests upon a successful rehabilitation of reverse types depicting personifications of abstract concepts, divine qualities, or virtues of the emperor, which are all too often regarded as trivial and boring in modern scholarship. E.'s quantitative investigations clearly demonstrate that – together with the clasped hands – FORTVNA AVGVST(i), AEQVITAS AVGVST(i) and LIBERTAS PVBLICA, all coined in precious metal and base metal alike, were the reverse types appearing on the majority of silver and bronze coins struck under Nerva (see the statistics on 171 and 179). E. persuasively argues that “the imprecision of personifications of imperial ideals is precisely what made them the most potent visual communicators” (150) – in contrast to specific images with clearly defined messages appealing primarily to smaller subsets of the empire's population. For example, while only inhabitants of Italy could relate personally to the announcement VEHICVLATIONE ITALIAE REMISSA, everyone from Britain to Syria could charge the vague concept of LIBERTAS PVBLICA with whatever precise meaning the slogan might have to him or her.

E. convincingly contextualizes this reverse type, as well as others conveying general ideas about Nerva and his government, with the help of passages in literary sources giving us an idea of the public discourse in Nerva's reign and contemporary laudatory rhetoric. In part, E. is able to build on his own previously published work in this chapter: for example, in the interpretation of AEQVITAS AVGVST(i), clearly not exclusively referring to the guarantee of financial stability, but to fairness on a more general level, as the emphasis on IVSTITIA AVGVST(i) on parallel issues reveals.Footnote ¹⁷ Coin types of Caligula and Galba expressly mention the remission of taxes and customs duties in connection with libertas-related imagery. On the basis of these issues, E. explains Nerva's extremely common reverse type of LIBERTAS PVBLICA as referring not only to the restoration of “freedom” after Domitian's death in general, but perhaps also more specifically to tax reforms, the remission of the vehiculatio, and other financial benefits granted by the new government (134–36).

Furthermore, E. is clearly right in his general interpretation of one of the very few reverse types of Nerva that are never accompanied by a descriptive legend: the precious metal type featuring a simpulum, sprinkler, jug, and lituus (Fig. 4). These coins obviously convey the notion of “pietas, religious obligation and duty” (108), an interpretation long since preferred by W. Kubitschek.Footnote ¹⁸ However, the inconclusive discussion of the specific meaning of the four priestly implements on Nerva's coins (106–7), echoing a long but similarly unhelpful treatment of the problem by Mattingly,Footnote ¹⁹ could have been avoided by identifying the immediate prototype of this image: the reverse of common denarii of Julius Caesar, struck in 46 BCE (Fig. 5).Footnote ²⁰ Their reverse legend makes it clear that the four implements originally referred to Caesar in his capacity as AVGVR and PONT(ifex) MAX(imus): the simpulum and sprinkler refer to the pontificate,Footnote ²¹ while the lituus, often accompanied by a jug, was the classic attribute of the augures.Footnote ²² This reverse type was subsequently reissued by Vespasian: in part without any changes (Fig. 6), but mostly with the new legend AVGVR TRI POT (Fig. 7). In any case, a derivation of Nerva's reverse type from coins struck under Claudius for Nero Caesar, as intimated by E., is not correct: the Julio-Claudian coins depict the simpulum and lituus in combination with a patera and the tripod; these are the classic symbols of the quattuor amplissima collegia. The four highest priestly colleges are not directly represented on Nerva's coins.

Fig. 4.

Nerva, denarius: RIC II, Nerva 24 (3.14 g, 6 h, diam. 19 mm). Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18217464. https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18217464. (Reinhard Saczewski. © Berlin Coin Cabinet.)

Fig. 5.

Julius Caesar, denarius: Crawford Reference Crawford1974, no. 467/1a (3.96 g, 12 h, diam. 19 mm). Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18217126. https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18217126. (Dirk Sonnenwald. © Berlin Coin Cabinet.)

Fig. 6.

Vespasian, denarius: RIC II.1, Vespasian 42 (3.41 g, 6 h, diam. 17 mm). Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18220711. https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18220711. (Dirk Sonnenwald. © Berlin Coin Cabinet.)

Fig. 7.

Vespasian, denarius: RIC II.1, Vespasian 356 (3.39 g, 7 h, diam. 17 mm). Münzkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, object no. 18219317. https://ikmk.smb.museum/object?id=18219317. (Dirk Sonnenwald. © Berlin Coin Cabinet.)

However, this does not detract from the positive overall impression left by this book, which is well illustrated (all coin images are enlarged) and very well produced. Typographical errors are few, for instance: “NEPTVNO CIRCENSIS CONSTITVT” (22; instead of CIRCENS) and “Ara Providentia” (83, 91; instead of Providentiae).

B. Levick, in a statement printed on the book's jacket, observes: “Rejecting received opinions of Nerva's principate, based on hostile writers, Elkins uses the coinage of Nerva himself … and finds in it nothing apologetic. This is a different Nerva from the weak and failing emperor of the few works previously devoted to him.” Is a “new Nerva” emerging from this monograph, then? Unfortunately, there is the imminent danger of a misunderstanding here. E. himself provides a much more nuanced assessment of his undertaking, in the conclusion:

But of course this does not mean that the coinage reveals the “real” Nerva, as compared to historical accounts. The historians paint “the image of an emperor informed by historical distance” (153) – and often distance sharpens vision. We must be careful to remember that this is not a book about history, but a book about imperial representation. And “historical truth” is a different matter altogether.