^{page 187 note 1} Obverse and reverse: Cohen, ed. 2, Antonin 17, 18 (on C's illustrations, see Dressel, cited below, 32, Anm. 1); reverse only: Gnieber, Roman Medallions (1874), pl. viii; Römische Mittheilungen, i (1886), 168Google Scholar; Zeitschrift für Numismatik (Berlin), xxii (1900), taf. ii, 10, 11Google Scholar; Richter, Topographie, 2. Aufl. abb. 22; Kubitschek, Ausgewälte Römische Medaillons der Kaiserlichen Münzensammlung in Wien, 15.

^{page 187 note 2} Professor Hülsen, in a letter to me, finds the representation of the Pons Aemilius, in connexion with the advent of the serpent, impossible, as an anachronism. However, to attribute avoidance of anachronism to the art of the Antonine period is in my opinion itself a pronounced anachronism.

The idea of historical accuracy in architecture, costume, etc. was as foreign to art in that epoch as it has been in every other age down to the nineteenth century. And Professor Hülsen tacitly admits this when he interprets the arched structure to the left of our medallion as a navale of the early third century B.C; for, difficult as it is to imagine a navale of any considerable size constructed according to the indications on the medallion, in any age, it will be recognised as obvious that Rome of the period in question possessed no large arcuated structures which can be adduced as parallels, quite apart from the problem of the roof, to which I shall have occasion to revert later.

^{page 188 note 1} Diss. Pont. Accad. Rom. di Archeol. vi (1895), 253, ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 188 note 2} Zeitschrift für Numismatik (Berlin), xxii (1900), 32–36Google Scholar. Both Dr. Dressel and Professor Hülsen, as well as Mr. G. F. Hill, have placed me under obligation to them by their kindness in discussing the original draft of my manuscript. Dr. Dressel's and Professor Hülsen's courtesy in the matter is all the more appreciated, as they do not find the considerations here advanced to be convincing.

^{page 188 note 3} Röm. Mitt. xv (1900), s. 352Google Scholar, ff.

^{page 188 note 4} Topographie, 2nd. ed. s. 203.

^{page 188 note 5} Hülsen (Jordan-Hülsen, , Topographie, i, 3Google Scholar, s. 144, Anm. 79) characterises their arguments as “nicht überzeugend.”

^{page 189 note 1} Mon. dell' Inst. suppl. tav. xxxii-xxxv; Lessing u. Mau, W and- und Deckenschmuch eines Römischen Hauses aus der Zeit des Augustus, taf. xii-xvi.

^{page 189 note 2} To the battlements of the buildings on some of the examples of the medallion I can adduce as parallels the Campanian paintings, Röm. Mitth. xxvi (1911), abb. 31, 33Google Scholar, where fortifications are clearly not intended.

^{page 189 note 3} I know of the following instances: Eryx: B. M. Cat. Rom. Rep. i, p. 473, nos. 3830–3832; Athenian Acropolis: B. M. Cat. Attica, etc. p. 110, Athens, nos. 802–808; Acrocorinth: B. M. Cat. Corinth, etc. pp. 66, ff. Corinth, nos. 541, 587 (doubtful), 596, 597, 616, 626, 651–654; P. Gardner and Imhoof-Blumer, Num. Comm. on Pausanias, plate G, cxxxi-cxxxiii; Acropolis of Troezen: B. M. Cat. Pelop. p. 167, Troezen, no. 23; Gardner and Imhoof-Blumer, pl. M. iii; Larisa or Aspis of Argos: B. M. Cat. Pelop. p. 149, Argos, no. 157; temple and hill at Bura; Gardner and Imhoof-Blumer, pl. S. ii; view of Amasis: B. M. Cat. Pontus, etc. p. 12, Amasia, no. 38; triple mountain: Imhoof-Blumer, Gr. Münzen, s. 47, nos. 34, 35 (Amisus); Bithynian Olympus: Imhoof-Blumer, Gr. Münzen, s. 82, no. 144 (Prusa); Mt. Viaros: B. M. Cat. Lycia, etc. p. 239, Prostanna, nos. 9, 10; Imhoof-Blumer, Kleinasiatische Münzen, s. 391, Prostanna, no. 10, with taf. xiv, 5 [sic]; Mt. Argaeus: B. M. Cat. Galatia, etc. pp. 47-94, Caesarea, passim; Mt. Gerizim: Donaldson, Architectura Numismatica, no. 33 (Flavia Neapolis Syriae under Antoninus Pius); temple on hill at Heliopolis: B. M. Cat. Galatia, etc. p. 293, Heliopolis, nos. 18–20.

It will be observed that in no one of the instances cited is another structure like that at the left of our medallion represented beside the mountain and towering above it.

^{page 190 note 1} B. M. Cat. Corinth, etc. Corinth, 653, 654, are hardly to be quoted as exceptions.

^{page 190 note 2} Petersen, A. P. A. taf. iii, no. viii; Mrs. Strong, Roman Sculpture, pl. ix, 2.

^{page 191 note 1} It will be remembered that part of the rocky walls had been torn down by Hercules, Verg. Aen. viii, 233Google Scholar, ff.

^{page 192 note 1} For the scene, cf. Trajan Column, Cicorius 11; Col. of M. Aurelius, Petersen, etc. taf. 9.

^{page 192 note 2} As Hülsen and Dressel have observed, Valerius Maximus (i, 8, 2) represents the serpent as swimming across the river to the island from the ship which had landed on the mainland. This does not, however, appear to have been the only version of the serpent's advent: Victor, Aurelius (Vu. Ill. xxii, 3Google Scholar) expressly states, “… quum adverso Tiberi subveheretur, in proximam insulam desiluit;” and the narratives in Livy (Per. xi), Ovid (Met. xv, 736–744), Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 94), and Arnobius (vii, 46), although a scholar having Valerius Maximus's words in mind may interpret them in accordance therewith, certainly in themselves give no intimation, explicit or implicit, of a landing on the mainland. And even if the artist of our medallion were acquainted with the version represented by Valerius Maximus, one may be permitted to doubt whether he would have been well advised in adopting it for his purpose. That Valerius Maximus, as Professor Hülsen informs me, is in general a close follower of Livy, and may be assumed here to follow the Livian tradition, does not affect the force of the above. Nor can I, with Professor Hülsen, demand of the artist a scrupulous regard for the extent of the city at the period of the event depicted.

^{page 192 note 3} Cohen, 2nd, ed. Trajan, 542 (Donaldson, Architectura Numismatica, no. 62); Cohen, 2nd ed. Sept. Sév. 522 (Donaldson, op. cit. no. 63). Dr. Dressel writes me concerning these coins: “In beiden Fällen ist nur eine Brücke dargestellt (die Verbindung mit dem Lande darzustellen war also nicht nothwendig).” But on our medallion too, if the structure to the left is interpreted as the Pons Aemilius, neither of the two banks which it connects is represented. The Trajan Column, Cicorius, 261, may also be quoted.

^{page 193 note 1} The lack of any indication of the rowers in the ship can hardly be considered an insuperable objection. I cannot adduce clear numismatic examples of ships in motion with oars and with no rowers represented; but in painting and mosaic there are at least two instances (Praenestine mosaic Röm. Mitt. xxvi (1911), abb. 34Google Scholar, and Herculanean painting, ibid. abb. 58) of war-ships in which the rowers are concealed, and only the fighting men and officers are visible; and the same may be true of many coins where the small scale makes a distinction impossible. Compare also the high screen along the side of the ship in the relief in the Spada, Palazzo, Papers of the British School at Rome, v, pl. 21Google Scholar; although there one cannot be sure that the rowers are in position: Cf. Plutarch, Ant. lxiii.

Nor does the undue shortness of the ship resulting from the assumption that the figure to the left is the hortator seem to me a serious consideration; the aplustre may be imagined as concealed by the pier of the bridge.

The position of the oars in the water cannot be used as an argument: on the Trajan Column (Cicorius, 118, 119, 217, 218, 225) ships are re-presented with the crew not at the oars, and yet with the oars in the same position as on our medallion: Cf. Plutarch, Ant. lxiii.

Nor is it permissible to draw conclusions from the way in which the waves are represented on the medallion, as to the direction in which the river is flowing: a glance at the Trajan Column, Cicorius, 225–229, will show that the art of the period was not always accurate in the representation of waves; one would naturally take the waves in 225 to be flowing to the right, and those in 229 to be flowing to the left, yet obviously the same stream is represented in both instances.

^{page 194 note 1} In the vast majority of cases, the god's head is turned towards his feet, i.e. he is looking in the same direction in which the stream is flowing (e.g. Cohen, 2nd ed. Adrien, 1113, Antonin, 817, 820 (Hirsch, Kat. xxiv, ii, 1537Google Scholar); B. M. Cat. Phrygia, passim); there are, however, instances in which (probably from the artist's desire to vary somewhat the monotony of the conventional type, or, in the case of monumental sculpture, from considerations having to do with the surroundings in which the work eventually was to be placed) the head is turned in the opposite direction; e.g. B. M. Cat. Phrygia, p. 197, Dorylaëum, 11; Arch of Trajan at Beneventum, Frothingham, Cat. of Casts, no. 19; Nile of the Vatican, Amelung, , Die Sculpturen d. Vat. Museums, i, no. 109Google Scholar. When two rivers are represented, with their streams meeting (e.g. Cohen, 2nd ed. Lucius Vérus, 348, Alex. Sév. 446, Gordien le Pieux, 172, Gallien, 224, Probus, 635), a strict topographical significance seems to be always present: either one river is a tributary of the other, or they both flow into the same sea.

^{page 194 note 2} I have noted the following instances: The Tyche of Antioch (cf. the observations of Gardner, E., Handbook of Greek Sculpture, p. 446Google Scholar); Cohen, 2nd ed. Néro, 37 (Macdonald, Coin Types, pl. viii, 8), of special interest as the Tiber is represented at the point where the canal of Claudius flowed into the harbour of Portus, 39 (similar); Trajan Column, Cicorius, scene 11; Column of M. Aurelius, Petersen, etc. taf. ix.

^{page 194 note 3} True, as I have stated above, there are instances of the reclining river god's having his head averted from the course of his stream. But this is because the reclining god personifies the river conceived of as stable—as a topographically fixed object; and it is sufficient if the slope of his form is parallel to the descent of the stream, having provided for which requirement the artist feels at liberty, if he chooses, to treat the figure as purely anthropomorphic; he not only can turn the god's head away from the course of the stream, but can place in his hand a boat (e.g. Cohen 2nd ed. Antonin, 817, Marc. Aurèle, 383), which considerations for topographical symbolism would surely have required to be placed in the stream itself (like the fish on the coin, B. M. Cat. Phrygia, p. 214, Eumeneia, 26); but which is treated purely as an attribute, like the gubernaculum of Fortuna. Cf. the similar treatment, Cohen, 2nd ed. Adrien, 1109.

It is perhaps difficult for the modern man to attain to a sympathetic or at least receptive frame of mind toward this concept of the personification of geographical entities; and yet, that it was deeply rooted in the psychology of the ancients, no one familiar with the monuments and the authors can deny. The Zeus of Aetna, as he appears on a tetradrachm of Hiero's colony (Hill, Coins of Ancient Sicily, pl. iv, 13Google Scholar), enthroned, brandishing aloft a thunderbolt in his left hand, in his right a verdant bough, and at his feet a pine-tree on which an eagle has alighted; and Kimon's facing head of Arethusa (Hill, op. cit. pl. vi, 15Google Scholar), with her undulating, fish-entwined tresses, belong to the realm of poetry quite as much as to that of geography. But with the coming of the Hellenistic age, there is a certain dry precision in the carefully thought-out parallelism between the real object and its anthropomorphised representation, e.g. in the Tyche of Antioch with her crown of towers and with the Orontes at her feet (the influence of which is visible in the representation of the emperor at Antioch in the Tabula Peutingeriana), and still more in the Nile of the Vatican (Amelung, Die Sculpturen d. Vat. Mus. i, no. 109Google Scholar); though in the Augustan Age an image of Tiberinus, with crown of reeds and sea-blue cloak, was still able to inspire a poet (Vergil, Aen. viii, 31Google Scholar, ff. cf. Carcopino, , Mélanges de l'Ecole Fr. de Rome, xxxi (1911), 156Google Scholar); and there are few nobler figures in art than the river-gods on the Columns of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, partaking as they do of much of the grandeur of that strange, half-anthropomorphic, half-elemental figure, the Rain God of the Column of Marcus Aurelius (Petersen, etc. Marcus-Säule, taf. 23 A, Mrs. Strong, Roman Sculpture, pl. lxxxvii). The subject is not void of interest, as a chapter in the history of the human mind, to which I think attention has not been sufficiently directed; here, however, I can allude to it only in so far as a general appreciation of the attitude of mind of the ancients in this regard is of importance for the interpretation of our medallion.

In connexion with the passage in Vergil to which I referred above, I may add that it is generally recognised that Vergil was strongly influenced by works of art. To the list of passages to which I called attention in Num. Chron. 4th ser. x (1910), 409Google Scholar, ff. as indicating his acquaintance with certain Magna Grecian and Sicilian coins, may be added one of a somewhat different character, in the description of the shield of Aeneas, Aen. viii, 671–674Google Scholar: “Haec inter tumidi late maris ibat imago aurea, set fluctu spumabant caerula cano; et circum argento clari delphines in orbem aequora verrebant caudis aestumque secabant,” where I seem to detect a reminiscence of a Syracusan coin; at least I am at a loss to point out the occurrence of the motive, in the margin of a circular field, elsewhere in ancient art later than the archaic period. It was known to archaic Ionic and Melian (?) art, cf. the great candelabrum of Cortona, Mon. dell' Inst. iii, tav. 42, and the steatite gem in the British Museum, Furtwangler, Antike Gemmen, taf. v, 30, Perrot et Chipiez, Hist. de l'art dans l'antiquité, vol. ix, fig. 7); and is in fact an adaptation of the flying fish motive, which that art had inherited from the prehistoric Aegean civilization (cf. Tomba della Pesca e della Caccia at Corneto, Mon. dell' Instituto, xii, tav. xiv, xiva, with the flying fish fresco from Phylakopi, Phylakopi, pl. iii), and which, limited however to the dolphin, appears also in the well-known Tarentine monetary series with the dolphin, as well as in the class of monuments attributed by Loewy, Oesterr. Jahresh. xiv (1911), 16Google Scholar, to a Cretan origin, and in Attic vases of the best period.

^{page 195 note 2} Fasti Amiternini, Dec. 8 (C. I. L. i, 2nd ed. p. 245, cf. p. 336. The suggestion is tempting, that this cult dates from very early times, and that the island received its name, not from its location in the stream, but from having been, before the coming of the serpent, sacred to Tiberinus.

^{page 195 note 3} Cf. Besnier, L'Ile Tibérine dans l'antiquité (Bibl. des Écoles Fr. 87), p. 309. The relief in the Rondinini, Palazzo, Röm. Mitth. i (1886), taf. 9Google Scholar, may have some connexion with the locality; but the question seems best left open.