So why am I writing this blog post instead of editing and revising the article that is due Monday and the very reason I’m ignoring my children on this first full day of their fall break?! Well, It’s because of what Crawford and Wiseman said in 1964:
The idea that the iconography is being used as a dating tool worries me. And the date matters for the article I’m co-writing. And, I have a 10 year old post about how Alföldi problematized the Aesclepius connection, suggesting Apollo was more the intended resonance. A point I was then inclined to accept even before I realized our chronology was hanging in the balance. However, Elkins in 2015 (pp. 25-26) accepts the Aesclepius interpretation. The As imagery in particular is read by him, Wiseman, Crawford, and Zehnacker as related to Ovid, Metamorphosis 15.622-745 and the plague of 87 BCE, BUT the association of the iconography with the with the events of 293 BCE and the establishment of the cult Aesculapius goes back to Babelon (2.405). Babelon even sees the Neptune on the quinarius as related to the sea voyage to fetch the god.
The passage is all about Aesclepius in the form of a giant snake taking a ship voyage to Rome and does make mention of the’ relationship to Apollo and Tiber Island, but nothing about an omphalos.
Alföldi, A. (1976). “The giant Argus and a miracle of Apollo in the coin-propaganda of Cinna and Carbo.” In In Memoriam Otto J. Brendel: Essays in Archaeology and the Humanities, 115-119. Mainz.
[Two other blog posts inspired by that article (Cybele, Janiform heads)]
So now it matters a great deal more to me with chronology at stake if I agree that the imagery is related to Aesclepius or Apollo. All the pictures above are because I was trying to see if there was an omphalos on the top of the altar along with a snake or if the so called altar was an omphalos. Or to put it another way how close is the iconography between this As and the Quinarius in the same series.
AND LO! That 1972 article Schaefer’s archive was insisting I read is indeed useful on the question of the Omphalos! Thank you Dr. Trell.
TRELL, BLUMA L. “Architectura Numismatica: Early Types: Greek, Roman, Oriental: An Extended Review of G. Fuchs, ‘Architekturdarstellungen Auf Römischen Münzen.’” The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 12 (1972): 45–59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42666335.
[Thanks to Richard Schaefer and the great move towards Digitization we most certainly have these corpora now!]
The other As in the Dossenus series (RRC 348/5) is more conservative in design but still works in the omphalos and snake motif, super imposing it on the Janus head:
So what do I think now? I’m pretty sure that it is the altar/omphalos/snake imagery not the temple imagery or ship imagery that is key to understanding the iconography. If someone can prove to me that this imagery is related to Aesclepius I’ll be happy to accept a Tiber island resonance.
Events of 293 BCE (sources beyond Ovid):
… a pestilence which raged in the City and country districts alike. The mischief it did was looked upon as a portent. The Sacred Books were consulted to see what end or what remedy would be vouchsafed by the gods. It was ascertained that Aesculapius must be sent for from Epidaurus. Nothing, however, was done that year, owing to the consuls being engrossed with the war, beyond the appointment of a day of public intercession to Aesculapius. (Livy 10.47.6-7)
Val. Max. 1.8.2 (perhaps overly influenced by Ovid or deriving from the same source): But then we may relate how favourable the rest of the gods were to our city. For when our city was visited with a three-year pestilence, and neither through divine compassion or human aid could any remedy be found for so long and lasting a calamity, the priests consulted the Sibylline Books and observed, that there was no other way to restore the city to its former health but by fetching the image of Aesculapius from Epidaurus. The city therefore sent ambassadors thither, hoping that by its authority, the greatest then in the world, they might prevail to obtain the only remedy against the fatal misery. Neither did hope deceive them. For their desire was granted with as much willingness, as it was requested with earnestness. For immediately the Epidaurians conducted the ambassadors to the temple of Aesculapius (distant from the city some five miles) and told them to take out of it whatever they thought appropriate for the preservation of Rome. Their liberal goodwill was imitated by the god himself in his celestial compliance, approving the kindness of mortals. For that snake, seldom or never seen except to their great benefit, which the Epidaurians worshipped equally to Aesculapius, began to glide with a mild aspect and gentle motion through the chief parts of the city; and being seen for three days to the religious admiration of all men, without doubt taking in good part the change to a more noble seat, it hastened to the Roman trireme, and while the mariners stood frightened by so unusual a sight, crept aboard the ship. It peaceably folded itself into several coils, and quietly remained in the cabin of Q. Ogulnius, one of the ambassadors. The envoys returned due thanks, and being instructed by those who were skilful in the due worship of the serpent, like men who had obtained their hearts’ desire, joyfully departed. When after a prosperous voyage they put in at Antium, the snake, which had remained in the ship, glided to the porch of the temple of Aesculapius, adorned with myrtle and other boughs, and twisted itself around a palm-tree of a very great height, where it stayed for three days in the temple of Antium. The ambassadors with great care put out those things wherewith he used to be fed, for fear he should be unwilling to return to the ship: and then he patiently allowed himself to be transported to our city. When the ambassadors landed upon the shore of the Tiber, the snake swam to the island where the temple was dedicated, and by his coming dispelled the calamity, for which he had been sought as a remedy.
Plut. Rom. Quaest. 94: Why is the shrine of Aesculapius outside the city? Is it because they considered it more healthful to spend their time outside the city than within its walls? In fact the Greeks, as might be expected, have their shrines of Asclepius situated in places which are both clean and high. Or is it because they believe that the god came at their summons from Epidaurus, and the Epidaurians have their shrine of Asclepius not in the city, but at some distance? Or is it because the serpent came out from the trireme into the island, and there disappeared, and thus they thought that the god himself was indicating to them the site for building?
Can the Omphalos be associated with Aesclepius? It certainly appears in most imperial statues as a prop for the god:
But the problem remains that when we don’t have other clear refers to Aesclepius (like his staff), and when the snake curls round the omphalos alone the most typical interpretation seems to be Apollo and his cult. Aesclepius’ connection to both Omphalos and arguably even the snake is because of his status as Apollo’s son. The question becomes is the resonance of Aesclepius or Apollo OR both?! the intended on on the coins. No sure yet. Darn it. And I still don’t like using iconography for dating.
One more thing to toss into the mix is that we think from Varro (LL 7.57) that the temple of Aesclepius was restored sometime in Varro’s life time (116–27 BCE). [Note that CIL 6.7 can no longer be used to support this restoration as it has been redated to the 3rd cent BCE.]
And, the only other Dossenus known from Latin epigraphy was a banker who owned a slave named Philodamus who sealed a bag of money on the 10 day before the Kalends of November in 73 BCE. (posts on tessera nummularia)
Gruber wanted to connect the Moneyer with the L. Rubrius mentioned as a Senator on the Pompeian Side at Corfinium in 49 by Caesar in BC 1.23. This seems unlikely. Recent prosopographical work keeps all the various L. Rubrii separate:
Gruber also suggested that Dossenus might be in the same college as Cn. Cornelius Lentulus because they both made quinarii and because of what he saw as similarities in legend. I’m not sure this logic holds.
87 BCE Plague Testimony
Granius 21-23
Vell. Pat. 2.21.4
Shortly after this battle, while pestilence was ravaging both armies, as though their strength had not been sapped enough by the war, Gnaeus Pompeius died. The joy felt at his death almost counterbalanced the feeling of loss for the citizens who had perished by sword or pestilence, and the Roman people vented upon his dead body the hatred it had owed him while he lived
THERE IS NO PLAGUE in the parallel passage of Appian, BC
Ditto NO PLAGUE in Livy’s Periochae
NO Plague in Plutarch!
Liv Mariah Yarrow 