The Jug and Lituus on Roman Republican Coin Types: Ritual Symbols and Political Power
By Roberta Stewart
Phoenix, Vol. 51, No. 2. (1997)
Introduction: In the coinage of the Roman Republic, a jug and lituus (the curved staff of the augurs) sometimes appear as a paired group of symbols; the earliest use is by Sulla, the last on issues of Antony in 39. From the ritual context, I argue here that the jug and lituus refer to the pontifical and augural jurisdiction over the ritual preliminaries to political action and particularly to the ceremonies of investiture of Roman magistrates-namely initial auspices, sacrifice, and vows. From the political context of each issue, I suggest that the symbols allude to ritual in order to legitimize military power.
The jug and lituus pair are first seen on the issue of Sulla, dated by Crawford to 84-83 B.C.: the jug and lituus are the central emblems on the reverse and are flanked by military trophies; the inscription identifies Sulla as imper(ator) iterum. These symbols have generated a continuing debate. L. R. Taylor referred the symbols to membership in the augurate. But Sulla was not an augur until 82. T.Martin has therefore reassigned the coin to late 82 and urged that the legend on the coin (imperator iterum) refers to Sulla’s victory at the Colline Gate. A. Keaveney has kept to 84/3 and taken the lituus and jug as symbols of Sulla’s auspices as a Roman magistrate and so of his iustum impmiurn.
These explanations are insufficient. While Martin legitimately questions Crawford’s seriation of Sulla’s coins on the bwis of hoard analysis and wear patterns and considers the coin-type, particularly the legend, to reassign the coins, the iconography of Sulla’s coin does not support his reassignment. Athenian tetradrachms issued by Sulla in Greece commemorate the twin trophies erected by him at Chaeroneia and suggest that trophies on his coinage refer to his Eastern victories. Moreover, Martin argues that Sulla’s victory at the Colline Gate would not have violated Republican sensibilities, for Sulla defeated an army composed largely of Samnites who were not yet recognized as Roman citizens. Yet to claim glory (IMPER ITER) for victory over already conquered foes also violated Republican tradition. As victor, Sulla could disregard Republican tradition; but to do so would undercut the traditions so consciously invoked by the remaining symbolism on this coin. In sum, Martin’s criticism of Crawford’s dating is legitimate, but his reassignment of the date of the coin and realignment of the iconography may not be. Second, to interpret the lituus as referring to the auspices of the magistrate/moneyer presents its own difficulties. Keaveney recognized that the symbols, like the inscription IMPER, alluded to separate activities that legitimated political authority: the legend IMPER identified military success and, according to Keaveney, the jug and lituus referred to the initial auspication of a magistrate entering office. Yet Keaveney does not explain why a priestly implement would symbolize the authority of the magistrate. The lituus belonged to the augur, not the magistrate, and cannot refer directly to the magistrate’s auspices or his authority. Again, Fears argues that representations of symbols of victory (trophy, legend IMPER) appear together with the lituus and heads of gods in order to attribute the magistrate’s military success and his auspices to the favor of the god shown on the coin, but he here implies first that the jug and lituus refer to the auspices and second that a curule magistrate in taking the auspices for an intended action sought approval from a deity other than Jupiter, the god traditionally associated with the auspices. He thus conflates the auspicia privata and auspicia publica possessed by magistrates of the State. Finally, these explanations focus on the lituus on one particular coin of Sulla to explain the symbols; and every interpretation so far offered of the presence and the meaning of the jug begins with the assumption that it is an augural implement. Thus, the reference for the paired symbols is implicit in, rather than proved by, the argument.
Click here to read/download this article (PDF file)
