Details from the Ara Pacis Adoption is a concept that we often come across as collectors of ancient Roman coins. Octavian was adopted by Caesar, Tiberius was adopted by Augustus, and after the Flavian dynasty, we get a line of adopted emperors for almost 100 years. So what was the practice of adoption like in these times? It seems to have been a quite common practice, at least among wealthy families, aiming for a suitable Pater Familias to take over for a present one of older age. As death in childhood was a far more common occurrence than in our days - both grandsons of Augustus; Gaius and Lucius died early for example - a noble family could find themselves in a situation where there was no heir to head the family. Adopting a young man of good quality would in this case be a viable solution among equestrian and noble families. It is however unclear wether this practice was common among the lower classes. In order to uphold status as a "noble" or "equestrian" family, the Romans had a required minimum net worth of 1000 000 sestertii for senators and 400 000 sestertii for the equestrian class. A family that had many sons coming of age, would in some cases be hard pressed to uphold the status for all their sons. Adopting one or many of them away to another family, would then be a way to secure the status of their children in the future. This way, the noble families with few heirs could be supplied with young men of quality from families with a surplus of heirs. It appears to have been few or no stigma connected to this practice. A non-citizen could not be adopted, however. A slave could not either be adopted, but could be freed and become a Roman citizen, and then be adopted. Under the Roman laws of adoption there were two options: 1) the man or boy being adopted was alieni iuris, that is, still under the control of a pater familias, the patriarch or head of a family, or 2) he had become the head of the family himself (sui iuris) by the death of the former patriarch. In the first scenario, the man/boy would enter the new family, bringing nothing with him from his old family. This included his children, if he had any. He would simply go from being controlled by his old Pater Families, to his new one, and likely inherit this position upon the death of his new Pater Familias. This was called adoption. In the second case, the adoptee had already become Pater Familias of his original family. When adopted to a new family, his old family would seize to exist, and all family members, wealth, land (and probably debt) would fusion with the new family. This process was called adrogation. Public permission by the Senate was required for adrogation. Finally, what did motivate me to write this post? Well, there is a certain coin that I have been looking for for years now, that has finally come into my hands, namely this issue: RIC 3b. Denarius. Struck AD 117. Obverse: IMP CAES TRAIAN HADRIAN OPT AVG GER DAC, laureate head right with slight drapery on the left shoulder Reverse: PARTHIC DIVI TRAIAN AVG F P M TR P COS P P, ADOPTIO below, Trajan, holding scroll, and Hadrian standing right and left clasping hands. "ADOPTIO" This is a coin with a reverse that is considered to be very political, if not outright propaganda. Hadrians succession of Trajan was not without dispute. Plotina, Trajans widow, stood by Hadrian in claiming that he had been legitimately adopted by the dying emperor. There were however rumours of false play; that Plotina had "slipped a servant into Trajans deathbed to impersonate the emperor and make the announcement after the real Trajan had passed away." (Potter p. 86). Some of Trajans old generals were fanning the flames of these rumours, and were suspected to conspire against the new emperors household. Within few months, four of them were executed. The new emperor had made it clear that dissent would be struck down upon. The issue of this denarius, both with and without the ADOPTIO inscription, was one of the ways that Hadrian would legitimise his succession, and establish a 21 year long reign as one of Romes most successful emperors. Please share your coins of adoptees, or early coins of Hadrian!
Informative article, @svessien, and an interesting reverse type! Adoptees: Trajan, AD 98-117. Roman AR Denarius, 3.21 g, 17.8 mm, 6 h. Rome, AD 98-99. Obv: IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN AVG GERM, laureate head right. Rev: PONT MAX TR POT COS II, Pax standing left, holding branch and cornucopiae. Refs: RIC 17; BMCRE 14-17; Cohen/RSC 292; Strack 13; Hill UCR 29; RCV 3152. Hadrian, AD 117-138. Roman AR denarius, 3.28 g, 18.1 mm, 6 h. Rome, late AD 125-early AD 128. Obv: HADRIANVS AVGVSTVS, laureate head, right, drapery on far shoulder. Rev: COS III, Diana standing half front, head right, holding arrow and bow. Refs: RIC 147; BMCRE 334-36; RSC 315a; Strack 153; RCV 3466; UCR 298. Aelius, Caesar AD 136-138 Roman orichalcum sestertius Rome, AD 137 Obv: L AELIVS CAESAR, bare head, right Rev: TR POT COS II, Spes advancing left, holding flower and raising skirt Refs: RIC 1055; BMCRE 1914; Cohen 56; RCV 3986; UCR 825. Antoninus Pius, AD 138-161. Roman orichalcum sestertius, 23.16 g, 29 mm. Rome, AD 142. Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS P P TR P COS III, laureate head right. Rev: ANNONA AVG S C, Annona standing right, between modius and prow, holding corn ears and out-turned cornucopiae. Refs: RIC 597; BMCRE 1228; Cohen 37; RCV 4147; UCR 502. Marcus Aurelius, AD 161-180. Roman AR denarius, 3.53 g, 17.4 mm, 1 h. Rome, AD 169. Obv: M ANTONINVS AVG TR P XXIII, laureate head right. Rev: LIBERAL AVG V COS III, Liberalitas standing left, holding abacus and cornucopiae. Refs: RIC 206; BMCRE 492; Cohen 412; RCV 4914; MIR 181. Lucius Verus, AD 161-169. Roman AR Denarius, 17 mm, 3.36g, 6h. Rome, AD 168. Obv: L VERVS AVG ARM PARTH MAX, laureate head right. Rev: FORT RED TR P VIII IMP V COS III, Fortuna seated left, holding rudder and cornucopiae. Refs: RIC 586; BMC 477; Cohen 111; RCV 5350; MIR 170.
Yep, Roma finally could greet Hadrian , it took him a year from Antioch to arrive in Rome. another 2 early coins: The long legends were typical for Trajan, Hadrian would switch soon to short legends
I have not replied to your excellent write up and historically very interesting coin @svessien, but it deserves one indeed. Congratulations on your coin, a very desirable type (which is on my wishlist!). Reading your write up makes me wonder; was the - in our eyes - breaking with the adoption tradition by Marcus Aurelius really a break? Or was the father - son - adoptive son relationship such, that it did not matter whether or not Commodus was the biological son, but in the eyes of the Romans above all a more than qualified candidate for the throne? I'll toss in my digital tray of the adoptive emperors (and one caesar):
Thank you Limes! That’s a good question, really. You are really asking wether it was chance that gave us 5 adopted emperors in a row. It’s worth looking into. I have wondered if it was attachment to his son, the one surviving twin, that made Marcus Aurelius choose Commodus as successor. He may have feared the future of his natural son if he made an adopted son emperor. Neither Hadrian nor Antoninus Pius had sons that could have inherited the throne, and were forced to adopt. So we may actually have had a line of adoptive emperors out of fate rather than policy. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me find the time to weigh in on the subject.
