Yup. I’ve got the bit between my teeth today and am running with it. Still using RRC 419/2, Claude, and Schaefer’s die IDs for his obverse 3.
I first asked Claude to produce a master outline. It had been using red outlines to help visualize the similarity between dies and I found this appealing, but I realized it was using a one-to-one comparison not combining data from multiple coins to make the outline and thus inform the comparison.
It gave me lots of visuals but this is perhaps the easiest to read.
I liked the heat map and deductive elements but the final result was deeply unsatisfying, even as Claude tried to convince me it was good enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
I started to think about what I know or see that the computer wasn’t including. I next asked it to consider the three dimensionality of the coins and the effects of lighting and photographic angle and even how the die might have hit the flan, perhaps at a slightly different angle of impact or different level of force. I didn’t mention wear but that is a similar consideration. The output I asked for was a 3D model approximating the original die. On my interface this is fully interactive. In this screenshot, I’ve selected the lighting and heat map and angle of view to best reflect the utility.
To see what each specimen is contributing to the model and help verify accuracy of the Die ID Claude provided this visual:
I asked Claude to use the tools from this session including the 3D model to test if this coin was struck by Die 3. [no, I didn’t tell it my belief that it was.] Of its own initiative–wow, it is freaky when it does this and yet I’m not ready to ask it to stop completely, even as I stop it from fetching or opening anything with out asking me–as I was saying…
Of it’s own initiative, it also compared this photo the rest of the dies identified on the page from Schaefer’s Archive.
I’m pretty satisfied with this approach. It still isn’t as good as my eyeballs and brain or that of Schaefer or Alice. It takes longer and has a hard time in achieving a definite conclusion, where I have no doubt. In this way it might be TOO good at measuring difference.
I’m sure there will be more experiments to come. But, for now I’m going to feel smug about my own visual acumen and reasoning, even in the face of robust digital tools that seemed like science fiction 5 years ago.
Feel free to request the replication briefing. I haven’t generated it yet as I’m not really sure I need one for this right now.
Right now most computer-aided die comparisons ask the question: “are these two coins struck from the same dies?” Or “how similar are these two images?”
I thought I might experiment with a different approach. What if I trained Claude on Schaefer’s existing die IDs? Could it incorporate new specimens into the existing die ‘typology’?
I used the briefing shared in the last post to start the new session and selected the three top coins of RRC 419/2 from acsearch.info when sorted by most recent. [links below]
The results are ok but not nearly as fast as doing the visual comparison myself. It took over an hour of processing time.
I asked only for a yes or no on die 3 as Schaefer had the most examples of coins struck by this obverse die such that I thought it might have the best luck at an accurate answer. Here’s a summary of the answer with my critique
I’m going to discuss them in the order of 1 and 3, and then 2, as two presents the most problems. I didn’t ask Claude to look at the other obverses but it did anyway, to a point. This is at once useful and irritating that it regularly exceeds commands. I’m sure you can use your imagination about why this might not always be a good thing.
For Coin 1, Claude showed me a new graphic representation to help me see the die match. Notice the squiggly red lines at the bottom:
Even though the angles of the first and third turret are the dead give away for obverse 5, I’m most impressed by the red overlay of the E and X. The comparison with die 3 overlay (the left bottom image) is really helpful for seeing what areas of the die are distinctive enough for a comparison facial features less than hair, crown, lettering etc…
For Coin 3 it made no die ID just said it didn’t match Die 3 (it doesn’t). Strangely it did not point out to what I consider to be the most obvious difference between coin 3 and die 3, namely the angle of the diadem bands. It showed some comparison pictures but not the useful red overlay. I could ask for it but I don’t need it. The die ID is easy and I found another small human error in the process.
Did you notice it? St. 11 503 and Henzen 192 335 are the same coin (!) but appear as die linked specimens in the Schaefer archive. Meaning before coin 3 (left) appeared Die 1 was only known from a single specimen. Now we have a true second. The reverse of this new specimen is also Die A, but with more of the die on the flan. I’m interested in the three scratches in front of the face. Clearly a die artifact not specimen specific. I also find it curious, that while not the same coin, coin 3 is positioned on the flan v similarly to the previously known specimen.
What about Coin 2?
My first guess looking at it is that it is a Dacian imitation likely made from hubbed dies that have been recarved. Not really fair to give to Claude as a test, but there you go.
Claude’s negative conclusion that this coin was not made using die 3 is based on the lack of lettering when the necklace and hair are relatively crisp.
So I took a different approach for deciding what I thought about coin 2. I decided to first match the reverse and then look at obverses that linked to that reverse. I think it has been hubbed from reverse H. Notice the feet of the togate figure in relation to the DVS of the legend and the distinctive different in the bottom of the letters D and V.
Reverse H pairs with Obverses 7 and 3. Three is a much better match for coin 3, but I don’t think it was really struck by that die. I think dies was created from a coin with these dies and then those new dies were ‘cleaned’ before being used to strike fresh coins.
At last, I found something that (as of now) I’m pretty sure I can do a great deal better than Claude.
I asked for some images to test out my theory. Claude is still convinced that there is no match, and obviously a hubbed die isn’t a real match but it is an interesting test. These images are suggestive but not decisive.
If I were just interested in the die study itself I’d throw out coin 2 as not useful to the study, but for the purposes of testing Claude it is interesting.
Since 2018 I’ve trained undergraduates how to utilize the Schaefer Archive and to transcribe the data and validate the analyses. Alice Sharpless is the fastest person I know for this work with the best eye for the unique orthography of the archive, to say nothing of her prodigious eye for unique features of the coins themselves. During our grant we were only able to transcribe and validate some of the issues (those that are done are now all up on CRRO and in sitnam). It is labor intensive with no idealized work flow. I’m sure human error slips in given all this. And catching human error is hard. All the material is however open access and begs the question, now what?!
So can Claude speed the work? Absolutely. Does it need human judgement and expertise to interpret and tweak the results? Absolutely. At the end of this post you can find the briefing the should let you replicate my work. But I’m going to give my process a human narration.
First I uploaded four high resolution scans of a single Schaefer archive page. These correspond to the binder page with RRC 419/2. This is Binder 7, page 108 (images 0,1,2,&3) in the original manual numbering of the pages during the image capture process by Erin Richardson. In Archer the ANS archival viewer you may see them numbered as pages 131-134.
I selected it as a small issue I’d worked on previously on this blog as I thought this would make a good test. I began by testing to see if it could extract data from a single coin. These files were not downloaded from the public ANS website but are project back up copies of open access material, jpgs at over 50 MB each. There are even larger TIFFs for archival purposes.
This zip file contains 4 high resolution images. These images are all of the same scrapbook page but because material was overlapped on the original four images were required to capture all the data. The goal is to create a table with each coin as a separate row and in the row all the data relevant to that coin. begin by just extracting the image of the coin in the upmost right hand corner and the hand written data relevant to it. Then wait for next steps.
1st Prompt
This was v fast and remarkably accurate. So I proceeded to ask it to do the whole page cross referencing the four different images. And I gave it a bit more information to do so:
All the coins on this page are RRC 419/2. No need to transcribe this going forward. Green has precedence over other die identification. Thus this is obverse 8 and we ignore the other ID. AR2 is the source, the citation in that source is 251. two short lines refer to a die link to a near by coin. Using this information transcribe all coin into a single illustrated table. Look for notes on the page that may apply to more than one coin. transcribe those separately.
2nd Prompt
This took about an hour to run. And used a great deal of my session allowance, but not all of it. The results were impressive only tweaking was needed:
Adjust artifact to presume Roman numerals are the same as arabic numerals when labelling obverse dies
Separate out those coins marked Plated or Hybrid. ensure the the image of the coin shows both obverse and reverse and does not cut off any handwritten information about the specific coin.
D5 is the same as D6. Combine records.
Prompts 3-5, entered sequentially
This got me a workable table and spreadsheet and let me see things that both Erin and Dick missed. Claude put into the notes that ST.7 411 (C8 = D3) appears twice on the page in two different positions. Luckily Dick (and now I) saw the same dies at work even with two different photos mistaken for two different coins. I also realize that even with four exposures Erin didn’t capture ALL the data. Overlaps still hide the source of one coin (D5) and another coin has the obverse partly covered (D7). This isn’t huge because this is small issue and I can readily spot these coins on the trade databases (see links).
Claude created the names for the coins and an interactive map to let me jump to each record in the table:
Here’s a sample of the transcription capability. It is cautious about what it transcribes and is good about flagging ambiguity.
This is what the general notes look like when transcribed:
I was impressed that Claude knew to shift languages when looking for notes and also deduced plating when coin photo itself was not labeled:
I then asked it to give me a die map.
Produce a Bipartite die-link graph with crossing minimisation, and then create an artifact that shows the minimum number of anvils necessary to have no overlapping lines.
Prompt #6
I did not give it a briefing from other dies maps I’ve created. This means it did the work with no frame of reference. Probably a mistake on my part. Need to create a briefing that specifies my specific preferences for die mapping.
Still it isn’t bad, even if it does not suggest a die box instead of multiple anvils. You’ll see it assumes multiple anvils is the only solution to reconstructing the manufacturing process. Below I prompt it to consider die box depth.
And it gave me all the variations possible:
[Claude briefly slipped into using “dice” as plural of “die”. 🤣 English is hard.]
assume one anvil, how deep is the die box?
Prompt #7
The first person “I” is unnerving, but I think having it re write it without would be even weirder. And I tried asking and got my first “AI hallucination”
So that was fun! It would be possible to upload Alice’s guide to decoding sources and teach Claude the format for transcribing the data to match format needed for integration into Numishare software (the platform that runs CRRO). Though, I think one would have to first check the results in another interface like the one Claude created before manually telling it to proceed with export.
My concern is not my usage here, it is what happens when someone uses this type of tool for a field on which they have no expertise. I can readily see Claude’s errors and tweak and correct. I know Schaefer’s handwriting. I know the material. I know how to discern good from bad. What I don’t yet know is how to teach a student to replicate my ability to check and use Claude responsibly for this type of task.
This raises concern about skill loss. I’m good at reading archival hands. Not all, but most I encounter. This type of ability to read script has been ‘special’ and something that takes practice along with a innate talent. If we rely on the machines how will we be able to check the machines.
I think of it as how I read a Loeb. I read the translation until I come to something interesting or odd and then I check the Latin or the Greek v v carefully. Often in my publications I tweak the human translations to show my own reading. Sometimes I translate from scratch, but only as necessary. I need the ability to do that.
Maybe a better metaphor is arithmetic. We made our kids memorize their times tables and all the rest including long division. They have calculators. I have an excel spreadsheet to keep me from making computational errors. I prefer to write a formula than do the sums long hand. But I could.
I’m most excited to use LLMs to speed up my tasks rather than try to become something I’m not. I could ask it to write music, but I have no ear. How would I know if it was any good? What part of it would be me? It holds no interest for me.
The socials pushed me a ‘news story’ which linked to this awesome new open access article:
Kileci, Şenkal, Nihal Tüner Önen, and Şükrü Özüdoğru. 2026. “A New Astragalos Oracle Text from Kibyra: A Comparative Study With Southern Asia Minor Parallels”. Gephyra 31 (October): 257-94. https://doi.org/10.37095/gephyra.2002699.
Astragalus
It publishes an inscription telling how to interpret the bones! You should download and read the whole article but here is a taster.
Digression. Something about this reminded me of the antiquated marking system in Oxford. Few used it when I was there and I suspect it may have gone the way of the dodo but one used to get collections marks like alpha-gamma-alpha. I never fully understood it, but was told that unlike a single number the letters helped to convey nuance. If I understood right an alpha-gamma-alpha mark might mean something like “smart, but lazy, with good style”. I wonder if anyone has written about that system?
I bought four knuckle bones in Rome this past summer. I keep them in a replica black glaze dish with the type of small stamps common in the mid to early 3rd century BCE. Now I clearly need to acquire a fifth.
I didn’t post my slides, lecture notes, and handout from the Champaign Urbana talk as I considered it a dry run. I want to give the lecture a couple more times. It feels meaty but i give myself a B+ for performance. I need to cut or at least trim and smooth out my oral delivery. I’m trying to convey a little too much.
I’m working now on my mega trip. Warsaw-Dongguan-Beijing. I’m not scripting these talks. I think scripting (before throwing out the script) does help me work through complex ideas and certainly makes publication later easier, but I do think it is still an impediment to performance. I criticize myself internally as I notice my deviations from the plan. This type of intrusive thought impedes the creative flow of narration. If i rehearse it in my internal voice as I refine the slides I get to a point where I’m comfortable narrating extemporaneously. It is smoother and easier to comprehend even if I may cover less material.
I’m not ready to share details but right now I’ve got invitations that means it looks like I’ve got a month (or more!) in each of three different countries in 2027. We’ll see how it all works out. Needless to say my love of a plane ticket to somewhere else persists.
Ok. Not a lot about knuckle-bones here but clearly i wanted to write.
I got to this very useful map and discussion of the phenomenon in this very fun 2022 publication. I worried the author has left academia. I hope not, I’d love to compare notes.
My desire is look at all the dimensions of these chests. I think this would be a good indication of the typical amount of ready cash one would have on hand. Of course multiple boxes are present in Pompeian houses and we can imagine even more would be found in the wealthiest houses. Andersson in the article I mention above makes the excellent point that there are some very wealthy houses where there is no physical remaining evidence of a money box at least of the type that were anchored to the ground and thus we must presume other storage approaches.
I have a bit in an upcoming talk about gold not being used much as money in the Roman republic or even being conceived of as such. I had good secondary literature on this and my own sense of things from woring on the material for so long, but I realized I’d never done any serious dive on this.
I have been thinking more about gold this last year as i’ve put serious time into reading this:
Yet, you know me, I wanted to see for myself what I found.
The only certain reference to gold coins in the whole of the corpus seems to come in the Philippics, where Antony gives gold coins (nummos aureos) to a chief centurion saying they are from Cicero’s property (12.20). This is 43 BCE and the period post 49 BCE saw a great deal of striking of gold coins.
I lean towards an incident in multiple letters of 45 BCER NOT being about payment in gold but I’m not 100% certain.
Att. 12.6 (306 SB): 31 May 45
Please see about Caelius and see that there is no gap in the gold. I know nothing about these matters. But surely there’s enough lost on the exchange. If the gold comes on top of that—but why talk? You’ll see to it. There’s a sample of Hegesias’ style, which Varro commends.
De Caelio vide, quaeso, <et>ne quae lacuna si<t> in auro. ego ista non novi, sed certe in collubo est detrimenti satis. huc aurum si accedit—sed quid loquor? tu videbis. habes Hegesiae genus, quod Varro laudat.
SB claims in his commentary that Caelius is a debt of Faberius and that this passage is about a transfer of debts in lieu of payment, bases his claim on
Att. 12.2a (301 SB) 27 May 45
All the same (?), if you see Piso anywhere, speak to him about the gold. If Faberius comes, please see that the claims assigned, if any are assigned, equal in value the amount owed.
Faberius si venerit, videbis ut tantum attribuatur, si modo attribuetur, quantum debetur.
SB proposes to restore an <et> in letter 306 to separate at the gold from the debt. This is plausible. The gold may be for ornamentation of the villa being planned for renovation in these letters. But I’m not sure we can totally rule out payment. It would be a rare morally neutral reference to gold in leiu of money or as money as far as I can tell, but it would fit with the increase in gold in circulation under the dictatorship…
To support the idea that the gold does appear to be a separate matter BUT it may also still be about payment:
Att 12.5a (307 SB) 31 May 45
I have written to Avius, asking him to make clear to Piso the facts about the gold, which are well known to him. I quite agree with you that this matter is dragging on too long and that now is the time to pull in all I have from every quarter.
ad Avium scripsi ut ea quae bene nosset de auro Pisoni demonstraret. tibi enim sane adsentior et istuc nimium diu duci et omnia nunc undique contrahenda.
Besides the above where gold might be treated as money but is highly doubtful there is very little evidence for gold as form of payment in which the circumstances don’t make clear it is shameful or criminal or highly usual. All the other passages make clear that Gold a sign of wealth, even a store of wealth, and a prized confiscation in war, but that the gold is to be weighted to assessed its value not counted like nummi or pecunia. Below are passages sorted by type. It is not complete but I believe the catagories could cover any reference to gold in the Ciceronian corpus. I’m surprised about the suspicion that seems to attach to gold used as payment, even as it is clearly accepted as a common store of wealth and in forms that have nothing to do with display. I’m going to work the weighing versus counting themes into another talk coming up later this month.
Suspicious Payments in Gold
gold the weight of Gaius Gracchus’ head as payment for hunting him down
De Oratore 2.269
as our friend Scaevola observed to the notorious Septumuleius of Anagnia (to whom its weight in gold had been paid for the head of Gaius Gracchus), when he prayed to be taken into Asia as his lieutenant, ‘Madman,’ said Scaevola, ‘what would you have? There is such a host of wicked citizens in Rome that I guarantee you, if you remain there, the attainment, within a few years, of enormous wealth.’
ut noster Scaevola Septumuleio illi Anagnino, cui pro C. Gracchi capite erat aurum repensum, roganti ut se in Asiam praefectum duceret, ‘Quid tibi vis,’ inquit, ‘insane? tanta malorum est multitudo civium ut tibi ego hoc confirmem, si Romae manseris, te paucis annis ad maximas pecunias esse venturum.’
Clodia’s Gold
Jewellry that could be used either to pay for a high level murder OR to fund some games (Pro Caelio 52-53)
Bribery
M’. Curius’ refusal of gold from the Samnites (c. 290 BCE) (48, cf. De Senectute 56 for more elaborate narrative)
those engines with which Philip said any fortress could be stormed provided there was a way up for a donkey with a load of gold on its back.
Att. 1.16 (16 SB) beginning of July 61
Gold tithe to the Temple in Jerusalem
Notice it is weighed and redirected to the roman treasury. That it was stored in the treasury is v interesting from a state budget point of view.
Flac. 66-67: gold sent to temple in Jerusalem by Jews from all provinces, Flaccus banned the export
The Senate strictly forbade the export of gold on a considerable number of previous occasions, notably during my consulship.
Exportari aurum non oportere cum saepe antea senatus tum me consule gravissime iudicavit.
At Apamea a little less than a hundred pounds of gold was seized as it was being exported and weighed in the forum at the feet of the praetor through the efforts of Sextus Caesius, a thoroughly upright and honest Roman knight; at Laodicea a little more than twenty pounds was seized by Lucius Peducaeus who is here in court and a juror in this case; at Adramyttium a hundred pounds by Gnaeus Domitius, one of Flaccus’ subordinate officers; at Pergamum not much. The account of the gold is correct, it is in the treasury (aerario), there is no evidence of theft, the sole intent is to create unpopularity.
68-69
Cf. In Vatinum 12: “were you not sent by me when I was consul to Puteoli, that you might prevent the exportation of gold and silver?”
Confiscation to pay for land
“The gold and silver from plunder, from spoils, from material for making crowns, to whatever people they have passed, and which have never been paid into the public [treasury] nor spent on a monument,” he orders that this be declared before the Decemvirs and be placed at their disposal.
‘ “Avrvm, argentvm ex praeda, ex manvbiis, ex coronario ad qvoscvmqve pervenit neqve relatvm est in pvblicvm neqve in monvmento consvmptvm” ,’ id profiteri apud xviros et ad eos referri iubet.
De Lege Agraria 2.59
To Fund an Exile
Tu comitibus, tu praesidio, tu etiam tanto pondere auri, quantum tempus illud postulabat, discessum illum sustentasti; tu numquam meis me absente liberis, numquam coniugi meae defuisti.
you comforted my departure with your companions, your protection, and such weight of gold as the juncture demanded; during the time of my absence you never failed my children or my wife
Pro Rabirio. 47
Honorific and Rhetorical Gold
De Optimo Genere Oratorum
19 – gold crown as sign of honor for Demosthenes
Gold as metonymy for wealth – Rhetorica ad Herennium (not really Cicero, but actually a little earlier)
“must have a gold mine at home” to condemn unexplained wealth.
And he [sc. Gorgias of Leontini] was held in such honour by Greece that to him alone of all men a statue was erected at Delphi that was not gilt but made of solid gold.
De Oratore III. 130
When they were putting a golden crown at the head of the text, they were really giving you no more gold than they would give a jackdaw.
Vat. 76
Gold as Ornamentation
Gold as Jewelry and body ornamentation (x3) Rhetorica ad Herennium (not really Cicero, but actually a little earlier); cf. De Senectute 59 for association with Eastern luxury, royalty
Verres manufactures enough golden cups to furnish half a dozen sideboards, without caring what may be said of him in the Roman law-courts, let alone in Sicily: Piso will have all Spain know whence comes the half-ounce of gold (auri semuncia) to make the governor’s ring (praetori anulus), acting up, plainly, to his third name, just as Verres acts up to his second. (Verres 2.4.57)
Gold a Store of Wealth but distinct from Money
Nothing base or sordid is told of Tarquin: but in his house gold was weighed and money counted among the women’s wool baskets; in a single dwelling all persons interested trafficked in the entire empire of the Roman people.
Nihil humile de Tarquinio, nihil sordidum accepimus: at vero huius domi inter quasilla pendebatur aurum, numerabatur pecunia; una in domo omnes quorum intererat totum imperium populi Romani nundinabantur.
passage is said to be an allusion to Fulvia’s control of the money, but there might also be something about baskets quasilla, rather than fiscus
I leave aside the gold crown and how you hovered in tormenting indecision whether to take it or no; for your son-in-law’s measure forbade that it should be decreed or accepted, unless a triumph were decreed. But in respect of this, as in the case of the hundred talents of the Achaeans, you could not bring yourself to disgorge money (pecuniarum) that you had already received and engulfed; you merely changed the names and descriptions of the various sums.
In Pisonem 90
Cum esset in aedibus armarium, in quo sciret esse nummorum aliquantum et auri, noctu duos conservos dormientes occidit in piscinamque deiecit:
There was a safe in the house which he knew to contain a quantity of coin and of gold; so one night he killed two of his fellow-slaves as they slept, threw them into the fish-pond
Pro Cluentio 179
lost in lacuna how many sesterces were stolen but 5 pounds of gold. auri quinque pondo
Other Passages Unsorted
De Orat. 4.76
—
Pro Sest. 93
gold associated with Syria, war, greed (innumerabile pondus auri)
—
Cic. Fam. June 54 BCE to Trebatius VII.7=28
in Britannia nihil esse audio neque auri neque argenti
No word for weight in the Latin
Upon my soul, you are such a coxcomb that I believe you would rather be consulted by Caesar than covered in gold!
Cic. Fam. March 53 BCE to Trebatius VII.13=36 SB
Admittedly it is no easy matter to distinguish the genuine article from the sham, unless a situation happens to arise in which the gold of loyal attachment is discerned in the fire of danger
Cic. Fam 9.16 = 190 SB to Papirus Paetius mid July 46
Paradoxa Stoicorum
Ostentatious display of wealth in home decor (13)
Will you call a man good who pays back ten pounds of gold when as itthe money had been entrusted to him without a witness he could easily have pocketed it without punishment, if he fails to do the same in the case of a sum of ten thousand pounds?
An virum bonum dices qui depositum nullo teste cum lucrari impune posset auri pondo decem reddiderit, si idem in decem milibus non fecerit?
(21)
marker of wealth (Pro Flacco 47)
the affair of the gold from Toulouse (allusion to) De Natura Deorum III.74
This started as collection of instances where Cicero refers to written account books in his whole corpus. I wanted to get a sense of the vocabulary, types of references, and any cultural norms around record keeping I can deduce. That’s easy to summarize: good Romans keep exceptionally precise records of their finances, good enough to be considered proof in court; bad Roman (and foreigners, obviously) don’t write stuff down, and, if they, do it is on weird scrappy records not in neat chronological tables. Cicero likes to pun on the various uses of tabula. New tabula can mean both a wiping out of debts and the drawing up a list of items for auction. Tabula are places where you credit yourself a bribe from someone and also where you indicate your position on a legal matter. Lots of rhetorical fun.
But the best part of this reading exercise today was finding the yummy passage below, a quote from Atticus’ letter, repeated back to him by Cicero. I’ve read this letter a dozen times before. It is a pathetic and memorable one. Cicero is so upset that his best friend is upset with his decisions. The civil unrest has come home to roost as Cicero feels his age.
sed abesse hanc aetatem longe a sepulcro negant oportere.
However they say that men of my age should not go far away from their graves.
Onwards, towards the yumminess. This read through, this particular passage hit different:
Reversionis has speciosas causas habes, iustas illas quidem et magnas; sed nulla iustior quam quod tu idem aliis litteris, ‘provide, si cui quid debetur, ut sit unde par pari respondeam. mirifica enim δυσχρηστία est propter metum armorum.’ in freto medio hanc epistulam legi, ut quid possem providere in mentem mihi non veniret nisi ut praesens me ipse defenderem. sed haec hactenus; reliqua coram.
My adjusted translation: I have given you the ostensible reasons for my turning back, and they are good and weighty enough. But as good as the best of them is one which you, once again, mention in another letter: ‘Take care, if you owe anyone anything, so that I may reply with like for like. The war scare has made things exceedingly difficult’ I read that letter halfway through the Straits, so that the only means of ‘making provision’ that I could think of was to be on the spot to defend myself. But enough of all this. What remains to be said can await our meeting.
19 August 44 BCE, Att. 16. 7.6, written at sea near Pompeii
S-B translates differently: ‘If you leave any debts, make provision that I have the wherewithal to square accounts. The war scare has made money amazingly tight.’
Don’t believe the bit in the S-B translation about money. It is always worrisome when a dictionary creates a whole new meaning for one particular instantiation for a word. There is no word for money in the words of Atticus. Yes, money is implied, but the implication is deeper and Cicero knows it. Debetur can apply to both monetary debts but all sort of obligations. Consider the vulgate version of the “Lord’s Prayer. Above, I’ve re-translated the quote to add in this vagueness. Atticus has cut off Cicero from any credit, not just monetarily, but socially. Hence Cicero’s choice of the verb defendo, he’s not coming home to settle accounts he’s coming back to save his credit in the sense of fides or good-word or social capital. He asks earlier in the letter if a defense is really necessary to Atticus of all people whom he felt supported his leaving. He will defend himself and his actions before Atticus, coram.
Money matters, but money is also the language of mutual respect and trust among elite Romans. Cicero probably owes Atticus himself, he usually does, that cui, “anyone”, includes Atticus. Moreover, Cicero knows from elsewhere in the letter that Atticus has lively stopped confiding in him. Pilia his wife had a stroke. Cicero learns this from Brutus NOT Atticus and expresses concern. Of course, this reading depends on the dates of the two letters.
Other quotes from Atticus’ letter that Cicero rebuts in this letter:
‘Fine then! You who is all about of belle mort— Fine, forsake your country!’
‘bene igitur tu qui εὐϑανασίαν, bene! relinque patriam!’
SB: ‘All right then! You talk of an easy end—all right, forsake your country!’ The Greek does not imply easy but rather meaningful or well done. A good death.
‘velim σχόλιον aliquod elimes ad me, oportuisse te istuc facere.’
‘I should like you to polish up a little tract to show that such was your duty, and address it to me.’
It is in response to this that Cicero implies that Atticus has changed his tune and in doing so broking faith with him and asks how he can need to defend himself to Atticus even if he will write on duties Atticus will not be the addressee. Hence the origin story of one of Cicero’s final works: de Officiis. In the end he dedicates this to his son, not Atticus.
Account books in Ciceronian Corpus
not a complete survey, but rather illustrative for my own purposes
de Orat. 1.250
An vero si de re ipsa, si de finibus, cum in rem praesentem non venimus, si de tabulis, et perscriptionibus controversia est, contortas res et saepe difficiles necessario perdiscimus:
acknowledging that legal matters often depend on documents that are not present but need complex explanation or discussion
pro Rosc. Com. 1
He, of course, as a fine gentleman and endowed with singular integrity, is attempting to use his own account books [tabulas] as evidence in his own trial. Those who have cited the payment of money by the account books of a man of proven character generally say: “Could I have bribed a man of such quality to make a false entry in his books for my sake?” I am waiting to see how long it will be before Chaerea uses the following argument: “Could I have induced this hand, full of treachery, and these fingers of mine to make a false entry of a debt?” But if he produces his account books, Roscius, too, will produce his. This entry will be found in the former’s books, but not in my client’s. Why should credence be given to the former rather than the latter?
—
Ibid 2
Aeque enim tabulae condemnantur eius qui verum non rettulit et eius qui falsum perscripsit.
For the account books of one who failed to enter what is true are as blameworthy as those of one who has written down what is false.
—
Ibid 3
Non confecit tabulas? Immo diligentissime. Non refert parva nomina in codices? Immo omnis summas.
Did he not keep books? On the contrary, most carefully. Does he not enter small debts in his ledgers? On the contrary, every sum.
—
Ibid 6
Quod si eandem vim, diligentiam auctoritatemque habent adversaria quam tabulae, quid attinet codicem instituere, conscribere, ordinem conservare, memoriae tradere litterarum vetustatem?
But if daybooks have the same value, the same exactness, and the same authority as account books, what is the use of establishing a ledger, of writing down, keeping an ordered list, and entrusting past events to a written record?
Both before and after this passage is extensive discussion of how tabulae are different and more fulsome that adversaria
—
Ibid 9
How is it that, when all other people who keep account books (tabulas) transfer their accounts nearly every month into their books, you allow this debt to lie neglected in your daybook for more than three years? Have you organized all the other debts in the ledger [codicem] of receipts and disbursements or not? If not, how do you keep your books? If you have, why is it that, when you were entering all the other debts in order, you left this debt, which was extremely large, for more than three years in your daybook? You did not want it to be known that Roscius was indebted to you. Why then did you write it down? You had been asked not to enter it. Why do you have it written in your daybook (adversariis)?
—
Ibid 13
Fannius admits that he did not pay the money, he does not say that he entered it as paid, since he does not quote his account books (tabulas). His only remaining alternative is to say that he made a stipulation (stipulatum). For I cannot think of any other way for him to be able to claim a fixed sum of money. You made a stipulation. When? On what day? At what time? In whose presence? Who says that I made a promise? Nobody.
—
Topica 16
A differentia: Non, si uxori vir legavit argentum omne quod suum esset, idcirco quae in nominibus fuerunt legata sunt. Multum enim differt in arcane positum sit argentum an in tabulis debeatur.
An argument based on difference: If a man has bequeathed to his wife all the money that is his, he has not, therefore, bequeathed what is owed him; for it makes a great difference whether the money is stored in a strong-box or is on his books.
—
Cat. 2.18
All right; but would you think that your estates will be regarded as sacred in the general devastation? Or are you waiting for new books? (tabulas) You need not expect them from Catiline; but my good offices are indeed providing new books—auctioneers’ catalogues (auctionariae).This is the only way in which men who possess estates can be solvent. If they had been willing to do this earlier and had not been so stupid as to try to meet the interest on their debts from the income of their estates, we should find them both richer and better citizens.
—
Cic. Att. 1 Oct 54
haec pactio non verbis sed nominibus et perscriptionibus multorum <per> tabulas cum esse facta diceretur, prolata a Memmio est nominibus inductis auctore Pompeio.
The compact, which, as was stated, was not an oral one but had been entered in the account books of many persons with names and full details, was produced by Memmius on Pompey’s advice with the names cancelled.
Itaque tanti acervi nummorum apud istum construuntur ut iam expendantur, non numerentur pecuniae.
Does it really mean weigh in the literal sense here or could it mean to estimate. Probably literal weighing…
—
Cic. phil.2.40
—
Balb. 11
Pro Caelio 17
Nam quod aes alienum obiectum est, sumptus reprehensi, tabulae flagitatae, videte, quam pauca respondeam. Tabulas, qui in patris potestate est, nullas conficit. Versuram numquam omnino fecit ullam.
As for the reproach that he is in debt, his expenditure blamed, his account-books demanded, see how brief is my reply. One who is still subject to his father’s authority does not keep accounts. He has never rolled over a debt to a new creditor. [trans modified]
—
Flacc. 20
The greeks don’t keep good records like we do! Cf. Pro Saur. 18.
Font. 11
Nemo Gallorum sine cive Romano quicquam negotii gerit, nummus in Gallia nullus sine civium Romanorum tabulis commovetur.
No Gaul ever does business independently of a citizen of Rome; not a penny changes hands in Gaul without the transaction being recorded in the books of Roman citizens.
—
Pro Sest. 72
subito nominibus in tabulas relatis nomen suum de tabula sustulit.
after he had posted up in his account-books the money he had received, removed his name from the posted list
[Cicero plays with the two types of tabula, the personal financial records vs the legal announcement]
—
Verr. 2.1.37
Previous governor turned over records (rationes) along with money, grain, and the army.
Cf. Ibid 98 – Verres uses excuses about not turning over his rationes to the treasury, Cicero holds he should have made copies.
—
Verr. 2.1.100
Hinc illae extraordinariae pecuniae, quas nullo duce tamen aliqua ex particula investigamus, redundarunt; hinc ratio cum Q. et Cn. Postumis Curtiis, multis nominibus, quorum in tabulis iste habet nullum;
He keeps accounts (ratio) with various bankers but doesn’t record them on his own tabulae.
Cf. ibid 102
Homo stultissime et amentissime, tabulas cum conficeres et cum extraordinariae pecuniae crimen subterfugere velles, satis te elapsurum omni suspicione arbitrabare, si quibus pecuniam credebas iis expensum non ferres, neque in tuas tabulas ullum nomen referres, cum tot tibi nominibus acceptum Curtii referrent? Quid proderat tibi te expensum illis non tulisse? An tuis solis tabulis te causam dicturum existimasti?
Oh you consummate fool and madman, when you were making up your books and scheming to escape being charged in connexion with those unrecorded sums of money, did you fancy that you could quite evade all suspicion simply by not recording the payment of money to those who took charge of it for you, or by showing your books with no such entries at all, when the accounts of the Curtii recorded all these sums received from you? How did it help you to make no entry of what you paid to them? Or did you imagine that your case would be tried on the evidence of no one’s accounts but your own?
Verr. 188
Capinatius money lender has secret account on the books for Verres under false name. Slave scribe assumed of writing this name.
Copies made and sealed by reputable men as proof
Verr. 2.3.93 for reading aloud of tabula
—
Flac. 21.
Official records of a magistrate must be held in public custody after being sealed
—
Cluent. 82
Cluentius has kept his accounts most scrupulously—a fact which assuredly has this advantage that no addition or subtraction could have been made to or from the family estate without its appearing. Yet for all these eight years you have been thinking over your case, investigating, discussing, examining every item relevant to it in his or other people’s accounts, and all this time not a trace do you find of such expenditure on the part of Cluentius.
Pis. 61
The treasure official copies out the provincial rationes of Piso and then is imagined exclaiming
No, it is neither ancient, nor Roman. I probably paid more than I need to but I don’t like bidding. I just want to hit the buy button and be done with it.
I wasn’t even going to tell all y’all about it but wanted to write this evening just for me, and this is the first novel thing that came to mind. I’ve been writing a great deal off the blog and it is going well, but today was a “kill your darlings” kind of day with much thinking about structure and presentation. The material I know well and holds no novelty. Sometimes I crave intellectual novelty.
Do you see the design? It is a piece of spade money. Spade money is an an early form of coinage used by ancient Chinese peoples. The specific spade money chosen for these coins is similar to this one:
The BM transcribes the inscription as 貝丘 (on the spade) = Bei Qui. I’m disappointed the BM catalogue cannot tell me more about Bei Qui and Google is equally crappy.
The BM dates the spade above to 481-221BCE the Warring States Period and the Eastern Zhou dynasty. I’ve got no way of validating that. They also say:
But again I cannot seem to confirm this. All the spades with this inscription in the BM were acquired from one single auction house a few early 1980s, a couple more mid 1990s. I decided to see if the auction catalogue writers were better informed. I learned: “Qi Bei is the traditional reading of this name, but Bei Qiu and Qui Bei have also been put forward as potential readings.” I also found question marks after the transliteration and suggestions it might be associated with the State of Han. Nothing that gave me great confidence. I will have to keep looking. I’d also love to know why of all the numerous spade money inscriptions this one ended up commemorated on modern coins.
I purchased my little coin because of how it evokes the ancient to legitimate the new, implying continuity. A theme I generally like to see as it manifests in different cultures. Yet, it also gave me the opportunity to learn about Sun Yat-sen and the politics and divisions in late 19th and 20th century China.
The denomination on mine is 5 Fen. Here’s a 1 Fen also from BM. You’ll see the choice of spade money is stable across denominations. I also am particularly enamored by the ‘Greek’ key design as border.
The manufacturing approaches used for Roman didrachms
Excerpt and screenshot from Star Trek Next Gen S2E16 “Q Who”:
SONYA: Hot chocolate, please. LAFORGE: We don’t ordinarily say please to food dispensers around here. SONYA: Well, since it’s listed as intelligent circuitry, why not? After all, working with so much artificial intelligence can be dehumanising, right? So why not combat that tendency with a little simple courtesy. Thank you. LAFORGE: For someone who just arrived, you certainly aren’t shy with your opinions. SONYA: Have I been talking too much? LAFORGE: No.
I fight the urge to use second person singular pronouns and include ‘simple courtesies’ and other things that might anthropomorphize LLMs. And yet every time I have this compulsion toward courtesy I remember Ensign Gomez schooling Commander LaForge that we don’t do these things for the machine but for our own humanity. In the Star Trek franchise Sonya makes Captain in Lower Decks and is portrayed as one who takes extra care towards compassion towards her own junior officers.
Of course the problem is that we’re told the extra gigabits of humanization is bad for our environment and we’re living in nothing like the post-scarcity future of the Star Trek universe. Still. I think I agree with Sonya. The risk for some is to start deluding themselves the replicator (or any other intelligent circuitry) is their friend. But, for others, the risk is becoming to used to issuing orders and perhaps losing a little of our soul in the process.
I’ve been asked to work in AI to my talk in Beijing next month. I’m excited for the trip and sad that “AI” is so popular that it makes muons less cool. For replicators to become a reality for our distant descendants we’re going to need the mouns perhaps even more than the LLMs.
Yesterday evening before my beloved read us all LOTR (my favorite crochet time!), I gave Claude this prompt
create a table with all these RRC didrachm types that includes the following data: mean box,peak,idle gaps, turnover min, anvils, as well as the ratio of obverse to reverse dies
I woke up to this:
As we think about ancient manufacturing practices there are two possible answers to the unscrambling of the crossed lines in die chain clusters, either one can theorize a die box with a few dies in use at the same time OR multiple workstations OR both. However I leave aside the possibility of both for small relatively simple issues as contrary to Ocham’s Razor, at least in the first instance.
I was suspicious of RRC 15/1. I’d not seen a die link chart to ‘prove’ this conclusion. I find charts far easier to fact check than these tables. I’m a visual person and they lay out data in a familiar way that is easy to cross reference against CRROs die link tables.
Prompt:
Show me a die link graph that illustrates the scenario of RRC 15/1 having only one anvil with no overlapping lines
This is where I started having intrusive thoughts about Ensign Gomez.
The other thing that seems noteworthy and concerning is where Claude tells me the answers it has given me before need correction:
For context, one generates briefings after a work session and then feeds that briefing into the next to ensure continuity of thought without maxing out a single chat thread.
So I put the above text into the box and then asked:
Explain how this error occurred, how it can be prevented, and why I should trust these results over the the prior results.
So now I get a result I think is actually important with my final prompt. And can use my commute into Manhattan to pick up my Chinese Visa to think about how I valid all of this prior to publication.
Prompt:
Same table with tweaks and additional data on RRC 25/1. Wait for RRC 25/1 data before beginning task. Change to minimum peak, minimum idle, and minimum turnover. Shade rows that require only one anvil.
This got good results but then I found I wanted more information so I used this prompt to modify:
Add to the chart a column for longest die cluster, and number of die pairs that connect to no other dies.
From 20/1 onwards we see a strong tendency to an approximate 1:1 obverse reverse die ratio. RRC 25/1 has the tightest manufacturing on this 1:1 model and in this most closely resembles RRC 15/1, but with far more pairings. Perhaps because it is a larger issue. The box is very shallow and not required to explain a one anvil hypothesis. There is little interest in creating chains. Perhaps even an avoidance of the practice. This shows to me concerted efforts to control (improve?) manufacture.
