So the conference for which I’ve been preparing is to mark the 50th anniversary of Gruen’s Last Generation of Roman Republic. Thus in preperation I need to re familiarize my self with his thoughts on Debt. The fantastic thing about 50 year old indices is that they are USEFUL. This is in stark contrast with many today that are at once created by text searching and also assume that you can probably just search the electronic version of the book yourself.
P. 68 – Reviews power of Crassus uses as examples his role in Catilinarian conspiracy and Clodius and Cicero both wanting his support after.
Gruen:
Crassus lent out cash, not for material profit, but to place men under an obligation. A good number of Roman senators were in his debt.
Footnote gives evidence: paying off Caesar’s debts in 61 BCE (Plut. Crass. 7.6, Caes 11.1). Less paying off and more a case of underwriting the debt:
Plutarch in the loeb (translation adapted):
once when Caesar was on the point of setting out for Spain as praetor, and had no money, and his creditors descended upon him and began to attach his outfit,Crassus did not leave him in the lurch, but stood surety himself for eight hundred and thirty talents.
Also it is NEARLY 830 talents not exactly that amount in the Greek. So how much are we talking.
Imagine the weight of 8 full grown male rhinos and a one young skinny cow. That’s how much Crassus got hold over Caesar by way of other creditors. Or, if that is too silly for you enough to pay a legion for over 8 years. It makes me wonder if Crassus gave up the triumph to stand for the consulship because he’d not made enough in Spain to cover the debts and he needed a new province to get out from under Crassus’ thumb… Rabid speculation. Don’t quote me. I’d have to think a great deal more about this.
A helpful comment on the original post helped me correct the above.
I’m not sure I agree with the sentence:
Money was flowing abroad in such large quantities that the senate felt compelled to issue a decree in 63 banning, at least the export of gold and silver.
Here’s the primary evidence:
Cic. Flac. 67
Cic. Vat. 12
In the Pro Flacco the key question is the sending of tribute to the temple in Jerusalem and stopping it is good, in the In Vatinum Cicero leaves the Jewish element out of his rhetoric because he’s seeking to vilify Vatinus not the Jewish people. The senate bans the export of resources to Jerusalem from Italy in 63 BCE because Pompey is actively besieging the city in that year! One does not fund the enemy.
Interest rates were consequently fluctuating and unstable.
Cic. Att. 1.12.1
S-B doesn’t think Teucris is Antony himself but rather a female agent based on the use of illa. The question is whether Cicero will defend Antony at his trial and if this loan is a quid pro quo arrangement. Antony may be holding out on dispensing the loan because of Cicero’s hesitations on the defense. Cicero wants a good interest rate. 12% per annum (= 1% per month) is an acceptable business rate as we’ve seen from this being the cap in Cicero’s edict. Cicero wants mates’ rates and Antony doesn’t want to deliver without re assurances of them actually being mates! Again I’m not sure this can be used as evidence as Gruen does here. I read the difficulty with the loan being a personal matter not a state of the economy matter.
Cic. Att. 1.13.5, 61 BCE
This follow up letter shows that Cicero wants the money to buy his house and that the loan is for some number less than 3.35 million denarii or that’s like 5 to 5.5 rhinos worth of silver. nothing to sneeze at.
To me the key part of this passage is that making expensive purchases with the help of friends was a matter of personal dignity. The loan facilitates the outward necessary performance.
Cic. Fam. 5.6.2, 62 BCE
Cicero is bragging here about the amazing interest he’s getting on mate rates on account of his being a friend to the creditors by suppressing Catiline’s conspiracy and the possibility of debt cancellation. 6% per annum is not the going rate it is the special rate for Cicero. Not unlike Crassus lending at no interest for political purposes (Plut. Cras. 3).
Val. Max. 4.8.3
Cic. Att. 2.24.4
S-B thinks this is the same individual as in A.1.12. Seems plausible and would make connection to Val. Max. individual more likely. For this incident opposing Caesar’s agrarian legislation cf. Plut. Caes. 14.
This Q. Considius may also be the fair minded juror mentioned by Cic. Verr. 2.1.18 and Cic. Cluent. 107.
Cic. Rab. 21 provides nice evidence for the talent of account being 6000 denarii.
Pro. Cael.
Cic. QFr. 2.15 54 BCE
Why did this interest rate jump? Because they were borrowing so much and thus creating risk? Was it just for them or everyone?
A photographer and teacher friend of mine asked if I could share anything more about a coin that refers to a quote she often uses with students:
Of what use are lens and light to those who lack in mind and sight
It’s a great quote. Don’t you agree? Anyway. I’m a sucker for a coin question and need some joy of the hunt in my life this Sunday before classes start.
My friend had already tracked down another photographer’s blog post on the subject so my job was pretty easy. Please keep in mind that Thalers are pretty far out of my specialty. I’m just sharing what I found. Mostly higher res images and catalogue descriptions.
Sold by Kunker at Auction 361, lot 56, on 21 March 2022, one of four
The following text has been lightly adapted and abbreviated with help of machine translation from the Kunker catalogue.
—
THE PRINCIPALITY OF BRUNSWICK-WOLFENBÜTTEL.
Struck under Julius (reigned 1568-1589)
Denomination is a Double Reichstaler. Weight of this specimen is 58.15 g.
Struck in 1587 by Mint master Diettrich Ockeler.
Obverse Legend: IVLIVS • D • G • D • BRVN • ET • LVN • N • R • M • A • D • I – 1587
Obverse Design: Armored hip image, half left, with battle axe in the right hand, below in the section
Reverse Legend: ALIIS • INS / ERVIEN / DO : CO / NSVM / OR, next to it helmet, right. triple helmeted, six-field coat of arms with central shield//* SI * DEVS * PRONOBIS * QVIS * CONTRANOS *, in the inner circle W • H • D • A – L • V • B • D • S • S • N • H • V • K – W •
Reverse Design: Wild man with tree trunk in his right hand stands half left, in his left light with skull, hourglass and glasses, in front of him the horse looking back left, above it • I • M • C • M •.
From the Catalogue notes: The curved sequence of letters on the back can be resolved into the following sentence: “Was Hilft Dem Auge Licht und Brille Der Sich Selbst Nicht Hört und Kieken Will”. “What help to the eye is light and glasses that does not want to hear and look at itself”. The letters placed horizontally above the horse mean “In Medio Cursu Metuo” (I have doubts in the middle of the race). Together with the legend “SI DEVS PRONOBIS QVIS CONTRANOS” (why against us when God is for us), they reflect the ruler’s personal attitude.
“Julius, 1568-1589 Reichstaler 1586, Goslar, Brillentaler with date June 14, 1586. 29.22 g. Coat of arms / Wild man with tree trunk and light, skull, hourglass and glasses between year and date 14 – IVNII.” [Machine translation]
“Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel Julius 1568-1589 1/2 Taler 1588, double cross Goslar half spectacle thaler. Triple helmeted six-field coat of arms / jumping horse, next to it wild man holding tree trunk as well as light, skull, hourglass and spectacles” [Machine translation]
“Mansfeld medals, counting coins and jetons Anton Koburger, mint master in Eisleben 1555-1577. Counting coin n.d. Crowned coat of arms with fleece order chain, inscription: VERBVM.DO.-MONET.INE. / On the right in the field an owl facing left, in its claws a pair of glasses and a small animal, in front of it a crowned double eagle and candlestick, inscription: W*H*M*LI*O*P*W*I*NI*S*WIL (“Was hilft mir Licht oder Pril, wenn ich nicht sehen will” = What good is light or lens to me if I don’t want to see).”
“Silver medal n.d. Owl with glasses and two candles / Inscription: What good are lights and glasses if you try hard not to see. 26 mm, 5.24 g” [Machine translation]
Text transcribed: was helffen lichter und brill wen man mit fleis nicht sehen will
“AR jeton (3.22g), ND [ca. 1553], Dugniolle 1934var, 28mm satirical silver jeton on the conflict between Michael Servet and Jean Calvin, 2 men arguing with splinters in their eyes with O – SCHALC TREC – VTH V BALCK around with LV6C in exergue // owl on perch holding a pair of glasses in front of a lit candle with WAT BBAT KERS OF BRIL DI NIT SIEN E WIL around”
The legend is beyond me. But when you pop the reverse into Google translate “detect language” it thinks it is Jamaican Patois. Which is both fun and very wrong. It is clearly Germanic and related in translation to the above coin legends. More as I know more.
It’s old Dutch. AND it even features in a Dutch Wikipedia entry on this and similar satirical tokens!
“Silver Satirical Medal Referring to the Committal of the Seven Bishops to the Tower, ND (1688). 47.82 mm; 47.34 gms. William and Mary (1688-94). Pickerton-pl XL #3; BM-pg. 709#1155. Owl wearing spectacles sitting on cushion, candle to left, legend above; Reverse: Scale suspended from heaven, emblems of the Papacy being outweighed by the New Testaments marked “I.C.””
The reverse TEKEL is a reference to Daniel 5:25, 27
“you are weighed in the balances, and are found wanting.”
“This medal was executed in Holland; the design and letters in the exergue on the obverse and on the seals have evaded all attempts at explanation. It may, perhaps, have no allusion to England, though it has been considered by De Vries to relate to the dispute between James and the Seven Bishops.”
The BM translates the obverse legend as “Yet still blind.”
I.C. stands for Jesus Christ.
The sentiment appears in a moralizing introduction to a Dutch Government report on Colonization in Africa from the late 18th century:
“Many a person is full of erroneous ideas, and this despite his imagination being so strong, that he will not allow himself to be taught better by another, even if he were given a light and glasses; the best thing for such a person is to gain insight through his own experience.” (machine translation)
The common nature of the sentiment can be detected in the use of the metaphor in this portion of German 1904 Psychiatric treatise. The last two sentences machine translate to:
“This really annoys me! It is precisely in such a case that we are called upon to open the eyes of the parents etc. involved, and this is precisely where the light and the glasses are missing!”
The coin and legend is also discussed on page 130 of the following book.
For context 391 Maxumus is present for types 2 [4 coins] and 3 [12 coins] but not type 1. Crawford saw 9 reverse dies of type one and estimated 22 for type two and 33 for type three.
So if we want to start from first principles what we know is that the follow are all after 58 BCE
418 Frugi (small issue, Cr. estimates under 22 reverse dies)
411 Torquatus (small issue, Cr. estimates under 11 reverse dies)
I mostly did campus/chairing this today. But I touched this work and it has been alive in my mind. I think I need to figure out my key questions so i know where to spend my last few precious hours of summer. Probably not working tomorrow but rather spending time with kiddos and trading my Friday for a Saturday or Sunday…
If only we could all date our muse… No, no. This is a serious academic post no time for jokes.
My question is how late in the relative chronology can RRC 410 go.
First I’m going to say I don’t think Mattingly can be right that it could be as late as 52 BCE. I wish I was wrong here. I kind of want to find the ‘missing’ coins from my 53-50 period. But these are not them.
Why have I dismissed it out of hand? Mostly the Dunareni hoard. Not huge but not small. 128 denarii. (I don’t think treating serrati as a different denomination makes sense).
Popilian, G. “Tezaurul de monede Romane Republicane descoperit la Dunăreni (jud. Dolj).” Historica 1 (1970): 52-66.
Besides the tail of coins from the sixties and fifties the hoard looks like it was quietly collected over a long time. A few coins of many types evenly spaced over the whole history of the denarii. The only types appearing with more coins are those like RRC 340 which are huge issues.
Just look at the tail:
Really 56 is the absolutely latest closing date for this hoard and unless the Musa coin was in mint perfect condition it would be hard to put it at that date even (as Hersh Walker and Hollstien both did.)
This hoard is found at a great distance from Rome.
This thinking feels confirmed by its presence in the Ancona Hoard (AN1 = RRCH 344). This hoard must close after 58 BCE because it has RRC 422 (a securely dated aedilician type). And it is very likely it closes at 55 or 56 because RRC 430 and 426 on which their is broad consensus on dating. It is small and sadly not properly published. “Source: Michael Crawford’s personal notes.” Here wear could be interesting the earliest coin is only RRC 300/1.
Again, we have the Grazzanise hoard (GRA = CHRR 349). 54 BCE is a solid terminus post quem given the presence of RRC 431, again a well dated aedilician issue. And it have 4 coins of Brutus and 2 of Rufus. And 11 coins of the massive RRC 425/1 issue of Philippus. I’d love to see if their are die links.
Yet again, the Thessalonica hoard (THS): terminus post quem secured by the RRC 432 aedilician issue, ends with the coinage of Brutus and Rufus.
Caramessini, Mando Oeconomides. “Trésor de deniers de la République Romaine trouvé à Thessalonique.” Quaderni Ticinesi di Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 13 (1984): 139-145.
So could Musa be the third moneyer of 54. Maybe. BUt his coinage is so radically different that Brutus and Rufus… If we push him earlier then he’s in the big bunch of moneyers no one wants to sequence.
Just certainly not 52 BCE and even a negative conclusion is a good conclusion.
—
afterthought:
Was Mattingly tempted by the slight visual similarity between Laureate Concordia on RRC 436 and the Muses on RRC 410/2ff…?
who knows me, knows I’m a pragmatist when it comes to quantification. There is no use looking at one issue if we don’t know what “normal”. Our data is really wonky and our models for estimating coins made per die exceptionally inexact. I’m always looking for a relative comparison not an absolute truth.
So over the last few days I’ve been transcribing from the Schaefer Archive, thinking about mint operations, and even finally running some Esty calculations. I’ve not even using here his ‘die estimates’ but only his 95% confidence interval. When converting to coins struck I multiplied the highest number by 20k (de Callatay’s preferred number) and the lowest number by 10k (the more conservative estimate favored by others). The goal of this is to try to capture the biggest possible range so we don’t squabble over the data but rather compare what we have in full view of the limitations. Romans themselves use the sestertius as the unit of account so multiplying by 4 makes text numbers and coin numbers easier to compare.
Crawford estimated a drop in production and while his estimates vary they remain a good relative proxy of production between issues. I remain in awe of the man.
Crawford Chronology
Now I want to return to RRC 423. Hollstein would put in 54, but Mattingly and Hersh&Walker would bring down to 53. Again all based on the so-called Mesange Hoard. This issue is large enough that Schaefer restricted himself to identifying Reverse dies alone.
Adjusted Chronology
This basically doubles our view of coins struck by the Roman mint in this four year period. Is this normal? Or low? Is there such a thing as “Normal”? Lucia and I tackled this question in a 2020 article.
So let’s just say that in any year where we can predict the whole of the mint’s output, this whole four year period looks lower. Yet all of these colleges are striking before the Sullan era. And in many ways I lean towards the Flower model of seeing Post-Sullan Rome as a different beast, even a different republic.
You may have noticed, for all I worried a bit about the dating of these issues, generally speaking if we’re talking about the period 53-50 I’m satisified they were all likely made in this period. Maybe one or two of the smaller issues to shift back but not further than 54 and none of it changes much the drop off in mint output.
There remains two more questions before I feel confident in my summary of the situation. How do I see the relative chronology of the regular coinages from about 57 to 54 (exclude aedile issues) and how big was the uptick in production in 49 before the Pompeians abandoned the Roman mint. Not small questions and I’m begrudging of my research time, but I think I’m going to tackle them. It’s do-able and worth it. I already published the Faustus issue back in 2019 and just re blogged it.
We’ll but 49 in its own blog post and in another the quantification of the preceeding 4 year period. But let’s define whose in and out of the later group to make sense of this. Numbers in brackets are Crawford estimates of reverse die totals.
At least one previous scholar has put each of these moneyers in one of the years 57-54 inclusive:
434 – Rufus, two headed, two tailed coins [~133]
433 – Brutus, two headed coins, and normal coins [~340]
430 – Crassus – Venus/ Amazon [~70]
429 – Capito – Mars/ horseman, Concordia/Villa Publica [~150]
PAUSE. [digression] Concordia! in the nominative. Looking just like Concordia on the coins of 62 BCE. Concordia is a key chapter of my paused 3rd book project. I have a blog post of my unpublished earlier drafting. I also have a nice little summary in my 2021 book (pdf of pages 163-165). Anyway we’re pausing for a digression because I didn’t think about how to connect this to veiled Concordia appearance with the laureate Concordia in the dative looking like venus without her stephane on RRC 436 (most recent blog post). RESUME.
At most we can have 12 over four years. So Two of these names must be wrong. So who to jettison and which direction to push those we push out? This calls for a chart.
Basically things are bunchy in the 55 to 58 and we need to spread out these moneyers…
Hoards will be next, but first!
I must engage in the ritual of school shopping individually with rising 4th graders.
I have far less to say here because Woytek and Zawadzka have said so much:
Woytek, Bernhard E., and Anna Zawadzka. “Ockham’s Razor. A Structural Analysis of the Denarii of Coelius Caldus (” RRC 437″).” The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 176 (2016): 135-153.
Where to find in the Schaefer Archive:
437/1: Binder 8, pages 165, 172, 173 (no clippings?).
Ok. So Bigger than either of the last two issues. Here we have 23 known Obverse dies and 33 known Reverse dies. But plenty of singletons among both so not all the dies by a long shot. Crawford estimated O=33, R=37.
Esty’s formulae
Nicely the die links aren’t messy. There is one big cluster as you can see but always we can predict a sequence. Of course if we find more dies it might get messier, but generally speaking this is the mint working in a much more systematic way than it with the previous issue.
437/2: Binder 8, pages 178, 184, plus clippings in 400-499 batch. Note: Schaefer did not separate out types 3 and 4 and their subtypes but rather leaves them as part of 2.
Ok this really surprised me. I assumed mint workers working on the same issue for the same moneyer would use the same striking management approach. But oh no! They couldn’t be more different.
We have 17 reverse dies (the altar) and 24 ‘obverse’ dies, and except for one ‘pair’ when we have both dies identified every die is linked to every other die in some way. The other thing that feels weird or at least challenges my previous thinking is that Crawford over estimates the number of dies.
On average each obverse die links to about 2 reverse dies and each reverse die links to about 4 reverse dies. Could the altar side really be the anvil (obverse) die?
The only singletons are among the non-paired dies and could (should) be rechecked.
I’ve re arranged these rows and columns many times but not yet come up with anything that looks like a clear sequence.
Generally speaking this issue looks like it is about twice the size of RRC 436/1.
Thinking of the security of the dating of this type I’m looking at the hoards and it appearance as the ‘newest’ coin in the Casaleone Hoard has me wondering if it could (should?) move earlier in the sequence. The next newest coins are all from 54 BCE. The Brandosa Hoard (closing 49 BCE) could help with this judgement if one could compare the degree of wear.
These lists need to be checked for completeness, but basically I wanted to think about features of Caldus’ coinage that connect stylistically with other choices moneyer’s make:
I see Caldus’ choices regarding IIIVIR and ancestor portraits and double headed coins as consistent with relative chronology that pulls him closer to Brutus, Rufus, and Capito’s choices. Rather than Marcellinus’ and Sicinius’ choices. This isn’t proof just part of my assessment of plausibility. Perhap Caldus could move back to 53?
This is a very small issue we’re probably missing a couple of dies but not many. 8 obverses and 12 reverses are known.
It is the most recent coin in the La Grajuela Hoard. Again, the next newest coins are all from 54 BCE. Perhaps this is just a function of volume of striking. I wonder how much the consulship of his father has influenced the dating of the type?
This issue is likely much smaller than Crawford guessed. The Schaefer Archive only documents 17 obverses and 14 reverses.
At the most generous Etsy formula suggests at most we might be missing 4 obverse dies and 2 reverse dies. This is a much small issue than Crawford estimated.
As you may notice one of these crowns is not like the others. [One of these crowns is doing its own thing… 🎶] I was certain that I’d written about this earlier on the blog. But not here. I know I wrote about it in a lost paper on Faustus I deliver versions of at Cambridge, Princeton, and the NYC Coin Club early in my career (all before 2008), but try as I might the typescripts and word docs of that paper have been lost in fried hard drives and failure to back up my work in those early years. One reason I love my blog (and dropbox). I should have another search at some point. I wonder if a printout might be in my physical files at BC…
Anyway. I chose a specimen from trade so can see all the details that often fail to show up on other more worn specimens. Notice among other things the globe has lines on it. I talk about this and other globe symbolism in a publication from 2010. These lines were first drawn to my attention by Rick Witchonke a moment of looking at his collection with him I always hold dear.
Today, my eye is concerned with the big wreath or crown. Notice it has a double band. A center ornament and prominent fillets. At first I was worried the fillet might be close to a diadem and thus worrying for regal ambitions, but diadems are distinguished from fillets by having more than one tassle at the end and sometimes a decorative band above the tassle (earlier blog post with imagery for comparision).
Crawford identifies this larger crown as the corona aurea.
So, I have questions. This doesn’t seem like a popular move to have accepted this honor. Was it acceptable to put it on a coin? Can you have the crown and not wear it. Also isn’t this gold crown and the rest of this theater costume the sames as the triumphal costume? Why would this crown have a different iconography? Did Pompey not know the precedent set by Marius that wearing this stuff out of context makes you suspect?
So perhaps what Crawford meant was that Cicero offers proof that Pompey actually used these honors at least into 60 BCE:
Cic. Att. 1.18
qui poterat, familiaris noster (sic est enim, volo te hoc scire) Pompeius, togulam illam pictam silentio tuetur suam
SB translation:
Shuckburgh translation with note:
SB knows his rendering of tuetur is controversial so he offers in his commentary a better justification than is typical of his free translation style.
I believe Cicero over Vellius and Dio. Pompey clearly enjoyed his symbolic honors and indulged in them.
The funny part we should not over look is that his honors were different based on where he was showing off. Laurel wreath at an ordinary ludi, but at the circus races the triumphal crown. How is this different? The circus was a place where triumphal garb was worn by the leaders of the ludi, especially in the Ludi Romani and the Ludi Apollinares (See earlier post). I have two different posts on laurel wreath crowns that may be relevant (post 1, post 2). We also have this assertion about 292 BCE in Livy:
10.47.3 This year, for the first time, those who had been crowned for their deeds in war were allowed to wear their decorations at the Ludi Romani, and then, too, for the first time, palms were given to the victors after a custom borrowed from Greece.
We only have one depiction of the triumphal costume as a costume and that from 18 BCE. Notice the center medallion in the wreath.
We have four triumphators on the reverse of republican coins: Marius (RRC 326/1), Anonymous (RRC 358/1), Sulla (RRC 367) and Pompey (RRC 402/1). They all could be wearing laurel crowns but in no case is it distinct enough to really see. What is clear is the variety of things being held types of different branches (probably palm and laurel), caduceus, possibly a scepter… These traditions of representation and probably ritual could evolve.
On some die variations though. Pompey’s big crown looks a great deal like triumphal crown of 18 BCE.
Why emphasize this one crown more than the triumphs? Aren’t the triumphs a bigger honor? Maybe it is as SB suggested that the one voted on by the people spoke to Pompey’s popularity more than his senatorial support.
Wowza. I’ve been writing for a long time and am still no where close to getting to my original question, how sure are we that the four wreaths on Vinicius’ coin are for Pompey…
I decided to spend some time looking very carefully at the dies. There are 12 of both obverse and reverse.
I wasted time drawing this. Unlike many RR issues their doesn’t seem to be much ‘pairing’ of dies, even if they do still seem to use an equal number of obverse and reverse dies. In the process of looking at all the specimens collected by Schaefer, I’ve decided it is super hard to tell if any one wreath is supposed to be different than the other three. At first I thought that the one closest to the stomach of Victory might have extra prominent fillets but the one above that near her breast also have fillets at least on some dies. I could almost confince myself that the one hanging off the palm branch end was the most significant but not really.
This issue is slightly larger than Messala’s from yesterday’s post. It represents something more than 120,000 denarii and certainly much less than 450,000 denarii. For context, this would plausibly be about the same amount of monetary value as Cicero owed Caesar in the next year 800k in sestertii (4 sestertii per denarius). [Charts on die counts and pair counts at end of this post.]
I worry this is a case of best prosopographical and iconographic fit…Vinicius is Tribune of the Plebs in 51 BCE so his coinage MUST be earlier seems to be part of the logic. But cast your mind back to my musing from about two months ago on how Vibius after being a Caesarean tribune in 51 BCE stays in the city and serves as money AFTER his tribunate.
Is it that there is no room for Vinicius in the Caesarian colleges?
49 – Sicinius, Mn. Acilius (not Nerius who is urban Quaestor), missing moneyer
48 – Pansa, Albinus, (joint issue), Saserna
47 – Plancus, Nerva, Restio
46 – Cordius, Carisius, Paetus
45 – Celsus, Palikanus, Asiculus
44 – FOUR AAAFF
That is pretty damn tight. Why would I want to run the thought experiment? Largely because in April of 46 Julius Caesar celebrated his own quadruple triumph. Four wreaths… And and even concordia could be a celebration of the end of civil war…
But we have one more clue. The case of the obverse legend. It is never in the nominative as is typical of labels instead it is in the DATIVE. To-For Concord. The depiction of the goddess is indistinguishable without the words from Venus Victrix.
Right. I found it hard to walk away from my thinking about the 50s yesterday but that is a good thing. It helps the work start easier today. It is the above quote (see last post for citation) that really got me spinning.
If there is any one who could tell you about mint production in these years it should be me and my research partner Lucia Carbone on RRDP. Thanks to the Schaefer Archive we’ve got bucket loads of die data and we have Lockyear’s correspondence analysis of hoards to let us think more about dating.
Part of me wants to pivot fast from Cicero and dive into this work now. I think that is a very bad idea.
So what are my first reactions.
Crawford was hesitant to assign many moneyers to the years 53, 52, 51, and 50.
55 and 54 have pretty ample coinages just at a glance, regardless if you accept Hollstein’s modifications of dating–putting RRC 434 (Pompeius Rufus) back to 55 and moving RRC 429 (Fonteius Capito) up to 54. The last really massive issue was RRC 425 (Philippus), well over 400 dies if not 500. Hersh Walker put that in 57, Mattingly in 58, and Hollstein affirms Crawford 56 dating. When I say 55 and 54 had ample coinages we’re talking multiple moneyers with issues using over 100 dies. Generally speaking with RRDP we’ve found Crawford’s die estimate low but reasonable relative measures. You can safely use them to compare the size of one issue to another but not for absolute quantification.
Likewise, Crawford isn’t always on point (nor is anyone else yet) with absolute dates, but we need a good reason to change his relative chronology. The main reason people have rearranged the dates of these coins in the 50s is the so-called Mesagne Hoard, but I have good reason to worry about at least some aspects of the reporting of this hoard. I am not ready to get into that either.
So what am I more confident about.
RRC 435 (Messala – one of my all time favorite coins) MUST be in 53 BCE so that gives us something concrete. Why? It says PATRE COS. My father is consul. That didn’t happen until July 53 BCE and ended on Jan 1 52 BCE. Unfortunately it is a tiny issue. And in this case Crawford over estimated the number of dies he’d failed to see. Probably because the issue was over represented in collections due to its historical interest — this is speculation! Don’t quote me on it.
Schaefer’s Archive data transcribed:
Die Pair
Binder
Clippings
Total
1:A
6
8
14
2:B
10
5
15
3:F
6
4
10
4:D
2
0
2
4:G
3
1
4
5:E
5
0
5
6:B
0
1
1
6:C
4
4
8
7:H
3
0
3
OBVERSE DIE
COUNT
REVERSE DIE
COUNT
1
14
A
14
2
15
B
15
3
10
C
8
4
6
D
2
5
5
E
5
6
9
F
10
7
3
G
4
H
3
Notice that only one reverse die is shared by two obverse ties. And that in the other case of one obverse die having two reverse dies that is the only die link for each of those reverses. This fits the general pattern of the Roman mint in the late republic to typically pair obverse and reverse dies but to occasionally replace them as needed. Also notice that we have NO singletons. Even Reverse D is known from 2 examples and No obverse is known from less than 3 specimens. Another dies or two might turn up but this is generally speaking excellent coverage. If we want to quantify we can say it is almost certainly an issue larger than 80k and well under 300k = small and of no great importance to the coin supply.
Esty Formulae applied
Weirdly it is an SC issue. This means, we think, that it was issued in addition to any authorization to coin money in the regular course of the year (What I think SC means and why). What does it mean to have striking authorized by SC but presumably no other senatorial authorization for the year? I’m interested in these authorizations of funding and the connection for the coinage also because in 51 BCE Cicero seems to be waiting for his own funding authorization (A.5.4: 12 May 51).
Here for once SB’s commentary is helpful, detailed, and logical:
Since the discovery of the so-called Mesagne Hoard, RRC 423, has been moved later in the relative sequence of the Roman republican series. Hollstein suggested 54, Hersh/Walker and Mattingly agree on 53. If this true it looks like a normal monetary issue that would have preceded the small Messalla issue–ball park 100 dies. Not huge but not nothing and certainly a relatively reasonable amount for an annual striking. Could the supposed coin shortage just be an illusion of our poor previous knowledge of the relative and absolute chronologies?
So RRC 435 does show up in hoards. The earliest being dated to 49 BCE and from the outskirts of Rome–CHRR BRA or 352 originally published here:
Pavini Rosati, Franco. “Rispostigli di denari repubblicani del Museo Nazionale Romano.” Annali dell’Instituto Italiano di Numismatica 4 (1957): 79-108. [ILL requested]
Because I’m a glutton for punishment I went through and recorded the types in the hoard with our updated dates post Crawford and then graphed them.
One hoard is never a perfect proxy for anything but this hoard is fairly large documents most years if not all types going back to the 140s. I thought it might be ‘good to think with’. The masses of striking during the Social Wars and unrest of the Cinnan regime and Sullan dominate are in full evidence. As more coins have been down dated from the 60s to the 50s it looks like there was a drop off in production during the late 70s and early 60s. Something like our presumed drop off in the 90s after the production bump during the rise of Marius and his military exploits. Here’s the same data graphed by year so you can better see the ebbs and flows:
Boccardi, Simone, Valentina Caffieri, and Sara Guiati. “Roma, Museo Nazionale Romano. Il ripostiglio da Rio Marina (1901), III-I sec. aC.” BOLLETTINO DI NUMISMATICA. MONOGRAFIE 60 (2021): 27-139. [Free to download via Google Scholar, I have on file] This article looks at hoards closing at c. 70 BCE and the same drop offs are visible in all the graphs. Backendorf, Dirk. Römische Münzschätze des zweiten und ersten Jahrhunderts v. Chr. vom italienischen Festland. Mann, 1998. Has similar graphs at the back of his big book.
What is new if anything is the idea that the Romans responded again from the late 60s onwards in increasing coin production and we cannot necessarily attribute a drop off in striking in 52,51, and 50 to to a monetary or cash flow crisis. Like all people the Romans has as much of an emotional relationship to economics as they did a logical one. Generalities about the state of things in literary texts must be balanced against physical evidence where ever possible.
To be continued but I’m going to stop for a bit. Get dinner cooking and then comeback to see if I have another post in me.
An after thought. The Brandosa hoard makes me question whether RRC 444 was really struck with a mint moving with Pompey as Crawford suggests.
And, no surprise, Woytek in Arma et Nummi p. 94-95 came to basically the same conclusion for much the same reason. 49 BCE is the right year but RRC 444 and RRC 440 were both made at Rome BEFORE the Pompeian faction abandoned the city.
Ok. This isn’t a real post. It is just a convenient link for me to use when I want to cite myself on this topic. I may add to it as and when my thinking changes.
FROM: Yarrow, Liv Mariah. The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Before the book came out I said much the same thing in an article Lucia Carbone and I wrote:
I was taught to investigate all primary evidence and formulate my own ideas before turning to the secondary literature. Then if I find something agrees with me I know my thinking is likely sound or at least based on similar logical deductions. If I find what I disagree with, I must then use those contrary conclusions to challenge my own thinking.
I’m finding this article challenging. Even though I and the author are reading mostly the same evidence…
Verboven, Koenraad. “54-44 BCE. Financial or monetary crisis?.” In Credito e Moneta nel Mondo Romano, pp. 49-68. Edipuglia, 2003.
I thought best to see how others have received it. I’ve been going through the citations of the paper in later scholarship via Google scholar. Usually it is cited without comment or actual engagement. Sometimes listed in bibliographies without being even mentioned in the paper or footnotes. Those are of no use to me. It is just name dropping. (I do this too in my writing but it is v uninteresting). Below I collect a list of little snippets of deeper engagement but where it is only for a small point.
The first to peak any real interest from me was:
Collins, Andrew, and John Walsh. “Debt deflationary crisis in the late Roman Republic.” Ancient Society (2015): 125-170.
Negotiable debt instruments as a form of credit money makes lots of sense to me based on what I read in my Roman sources. What I notice however is that Collins and Walsh start their crisis in 49, NOT 54. I think my problem is that i don’t really believe the crisis started in 54 but rather that conditions were ripen for the crisis in the 5 years before 49. And my interest in 51-50 is just at the tail end before the crisis itself.
So now we come to the kicker: Does Cic. Att. 5.2.13 say what it is presumed here and by others to say? That interest rates were capped because they were sky-rocketing in relation to political tensions. This is not how I naturally read the episode or senatorial motivations. Let’s look at it together.
The Salmatians are ready to pay with 12% interest (in our terms which is APR, but 1% MPR in ancient reckoning). Scaptius, Brutus’ agent, objects and want 48% APR (4% MPR – quaternas in the Latin). Cicero says he wrote his edict to not allow such interest gouging in his province and his province alone. Scaptius counters with a SC from 56 BCE that says that the debt should be upheld by the governor as written. Cicero discovers there were two SCs from 56 BCE. The SC Scaptius envokes allowed a 4% interest, but wasn’t legal because of a lex Gabinia.
What is this lex Gabinia? Either it was passed in 67 (a plebicite) or 58 (consular lex). It is only known from this letter and A.6.2.7. It seems to have made invalid loans raised at Rome by provincial communities (whether this effected provincials more generally is unclear). The loan could be declared invalid and the parties fined. The first SC tried to give an exception, but Cicero judges that it insufficent:
at postea venit in mentem faeneratoribus nihil se iuvare illud senatus consultum, quod ex syngrapha ius dici lex Gabinia vetaret.
The second SC description is lost in the corrupt text. I find SB’s reconstruction plausible. That it allowed the loan but didn’t differentiate from other loans.
Cicero continues that Atticus must make Brutus see all of this. To support his judgement he invokes a recent decision of the Senate:
praesertim cum senatus consultum modo factum sit (puto, postquam tu es profectus) in creditorum causa ut centesimae perpetuo faenore ducerentur.
“especially as a senatorial decree has just been passed—I think since you left town—in the matter of money-lenders, that twelve per cent. simple interest was to be the rate.” (Shuckburgh)
“especially as the Senate recently passed a decree for creditors, after you left Rome, I think, fixing 1 percent simple interest as the legal rate.” (SB)
We are clearly missing some context though. If this was going to directly effect either Atticus or Cicero’s own finances he wouldn’t be so flippant in his summary of Lucceius’ judgement. Lucceius is likely Pompey’s agent in Cilicia and the one tasked with extracting payments from his debtors:
Cicero seems to be laughing at the idea that this measure could be compared to a general debt cancellation. He also seems to find the idea that payment delays were such a terrible blow to the state.
In all the other references to loans this SC does not come up again. Like the lex Gabinia it shows senatorial interest in the economy, but we just don’t know to whom it applied. We also see that from SCs of 56 BCE about the Salmatians that the Senate is delightfully fickle in these judgements and happy to make exceptions.
Dio 41.37 is often invoked as a continuation of what Cicero reports as an aside in A.5.21:
Caesar takes action because the tribunes couldn’t get a lower interest rate to work. This isn’t an enforcing of an old law, this is a new tribunician action. μετριάζω means to regulate or moderate not to enforce. The problem according to Dio is that creditors would rather forfeit securities than pay and the creditors were demanding physical coin and not accepting securities. 49 was a cash hungry year. That is not the case in 51 or even early 50.
García Morcillo, Marta. “Mentality, motivation, and economic decision‐making in Ancient Rome: Cicero and Tullia’s shrine.” The Economic History Review 73, no. 3 (2020): 623-643.
Silver, M., 2011. Finding the Roman Empire’s disappeared deposit bankers. Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, pp.301-327. [but no page 9! in this article]
Woytek, Bernhard E. “Monetary innovation in ancient Rome: the Republic and its legacy.” In Explaining monetary and financial innovation: A historical analysis, pp. 197-226. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014.
Still to be checked; ILL requested:
Harris, William V. “Credit-money in the Roman economy.” Klio 101, no. 1 (2019): 158-189.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 