The news stories are fine, the memes rub me the wrong way.
I hate to be a pedant. Or, rather, I love to be a pendant, but worry I’ll get that side-eye people give when they want to know why you cannot take a joke or just enjoy it quietly.
It is a compulsion to be accurate. I cannot resist correcting this meme and dropping some historical context on anyone who will give me the time of day.
The image on the left is a posthumous portrait of Alexander the Great. That means, AFteR hE wAs DEaD, people.

This obverse type was struck by Lysimachus 323 – 281 BCE and probably some issues even later by others. It was part of Lysimachus’ bid to be one of the successful Diadochi, or successors of Alexander. He connects himself to Alexander by showing Alexander as the son of Ammon (those horns!), and thus a (semi!) divine figure. The diadem is a symbol of kingship, particularly kingship based on struggle, the spear-one territory. Lysimachus failed. The Attalid dynasty rose in his place. He thought just because a man was a eunuch he was without ambition. Sex difference does not determine capacity to lead.
What is a better historical parallel to Trump signing the dollars? Well, a signature, of course. We might talk about Alexander’s father signing coins, the famous Philippoi gold coins that funded the power of his Macedonian dynasty and are so often discussed in literature.

And yet, what makes this signature on the coin so interesting–I’m sure there are other earlier examples, I’m not claiming this is a first, just a v famous example–if that Philip is not King OF anything, he’s just Philip, sovereignty rests in him alone, not the idea of a people or a place. Only he guarantees this coinage. So this too is not a very good historical parallel. Trump is signing the bills not replacing the issuing identify underwriting the worth of the dollar.
I see this as a means of assuaging Trump’s (bruised?) ego after the apparently stalled or aborted attempt to put his head on coin. Here’s the news story from last October.

So is there a good parallel for Trump’s signature on the dollar from the ancient world. Our founders idealized the Roman republic so we might as well look there to start.


Flamininus was the first living Roman (or really any Roman) to get his head on a coin. Basically, this looks like Greeks and Romans trying to figure out in 196 BCE what the status of Roman commanders were and how to treat them, when they behaved like Hellenistic kings. Do you honor them as kings? The coin type is only known from a handful of specimens and looks like a failed experiment. The next living Roman is Julius Caesar during his dictatorship and he got stabbed by his besties shortly there after. A failed experiment? Not really. Those besties then put their portraits on coins. Uber hypocrisy.
BUT we’re not talking about portraits but about signatures, the adding of individual authority to state authority and perhaps beginning to symbolically conflate the two. Julius Caesar certainly tied his own identify to Rome’s and what he started Augustus did much much better and more adeptly, creating a monarchy dressed up in the garb of a republic, but no republic at all.
Was this all new or had others experimented in this vein before? When had a supreme commander signed the coinage that was also associated with the authority of the state, not his identity alone?


Sulla marched on Rome in 88 BCE to overturn the Marian shenanigans that threatened to strip him of his command against Mithridates. After he was satisfied he’d got his way, he went East acting as any warlord would. Meanwhile back at the Ranch Rome, the Marians seized power, what we now call the Cinnan Regime. During this period, the Romans basically had two sets of individuals both with large armies claiming to be legitimately acting with the imperium of the Roman people. Imperium might here be translated here as authority, but it was basically the right to impose the will of the Roman people through any means necessary. Yes, it gives us our English words, Empire and Imperial.
So Sulla decided he has to retake Rome the city from the individuals he deems illegitimate (they of course said the same thing about him). On his way back, with lots of Eastern loot, he stops off in Athens and leaves his mark on their coins. He also there strikes some coins on Roman weight standards focusing on himself with no obvious nod to the authority of Rome itself. Then comes the coins above. They are in many ways conservative and old fashioned in style. On the obverse is the head of Roma. Roma has pretty much fallen off Roman coin designs for the whole of the previous two decades, appearing only once in the interim. Sulla is clearly reviving Roma to flag his association with conservative traditional views of the state. Likewise he allows his quaestor (roughly elected accountant-in-chief or CFO) to sign and issue on his behalf. The reverse has his name, signature if you will, and even an image of him as triumphant (a future event!), but it is not explicit that he is the authority. He is part of the authority but he still centers Rome as Rome.
Is this a perfect parallel? No. History rhymes more than it repeats, as the saying goes. But it does tell us something about how Caesar and then Augustus might have had precedence in how they conceived of their personal identities as entangled with that of Rome. I also think it may help us see clearer that Trump is open and eager to conflate his personal identity with that of our national identity.
If this is disturbing to you, I invite you to find a street corner and meet a few neighbors who are equally disturbed. I believe in our republic. I love my country. No Kings. Only “we, the people” are sovereign, but we must exercise our rights and fulfill our responsibilities.












































































