Derow taught not to talk of Rome (at least so far as Polybius’ Bk 6 goes) of a mixed constitution (a little of this, a little of that), but instead as balanced.  He didn’t mean this so much as checks and balances but more the balancing act of not letting the anacyclosis (the cycle of constitutions) role on to the next form: monarchy to tyranny to aristocracy to oligarchy to democracy to ochlocracy.  Rome was (precariously) balanced: the wheel wasn’t rolling (yet).

That’s background (and how I teach the republican government a la Polybius most semesters).

This blog post is because I just read again a sentence from the Cicero’s Republic (2.42):

For those elements which I have mentioned were combined (mixta) in our State as it was then, and in those of the Spartans and Carthaginians, in such a way that there was no balance (temperata) whatever.

I’ve never thought my views (via Derow’s) of aligned with those of Cicero’s…

Papius again.  You might also notice I let my obsession run a little wild last night after the kids went to bed and got started on my typology.

Or would I say forge or kiln?  I better look up some obscure Latin if I’m going to continue worrying about  the identity of objects on the Papius series (j/k).  Anyway this is relevant to ancient technologies around metal refinement and thus would be familiar to those engaged in mint operations.

If this is really Crawford symbol 24 like the catalogue suggests, than the drawings (or they specimens they were based on) were poor indeed.

Update 10-25-21:

Definitely a forger’s die. (or a modern forgery of such an object) Most likely created using hubbing. This is made obvious by comparison with specimens in the Schaefer Archive. A huge shame current location and details of discovery of this unique object are not known.

Original Post:

The idea of a real republican die for the main mint surviving seems completely improbable.  I just can’t make up a story whereby this would happen.  This must be an imitation, but a nice one… Hubbed?  There are imitations known but not this fine (and another example).  Just reacting.  But the control mark isn’t one detailed by Crawford 1974: p. LXVIII-LXIX (not that those sketches are perfect, but their usually pretty good).  The rightly catalogue says: “Für das Symbol vgl. 148.”  But this clearly isn’t Crawford’s 148 as that is a pair of animal heads.  There is a small chance that it matches Crawford’s 86: a lamp hook and a lamp.  Helps if I look at the right plates…. Strangely the odd symbol makes me think it is more genuine.  Hmm.. Must think more: Papius is on my list of future projects.

(in the Princeton museum)

The sort of object needed to hang up one of these (or as Crawford says, a cooking pot):

Cic. de re pub

By ‘old-style’ what Rathbone and von Reden mean here is what 1/5 of two denarii would have been before the retariffing of the denarius from 10 asses to 16 asses.  This is a simple and brilliant explanation of Gaius Gracchus’ otherwise bonkers pricing structure.  And the first good illustration I’ve seen of how Romans reacted to the retariffing.

Google Books link.

This is just fun.

C. 101 (Mattingly) or 104 (Crawford) this novus homo makes a VERY conservative coin (RRC 318/1) (gorgeous specimen though!):

By 94 he’s consul.  And Cicero’s brother is using him as a positive exempla by the late 60s:

Then his son (so Crawford, I think perhaps grandson — we don’t know the moneyer’s filiation I don’t think, but I need to go through Cicero’s letters again to double check) in 51 BCE puts his portrait on a coin (RRC 437):

I don’t think we have any other portraits of moneyers except Brutus…  And none where the portrait is from the regular coin series.  That’s your trivial detail for the day.

I guess I had good instincts on the grandson thing… I’ve ordered this via ILL and will update blog as I read more:

 

Woytek, Bernhard E. and Zawadzka, Anna. “Ockham’s razor: a structural analysis of the denarii of Coelius Caldus (RRC 437).” Numismatic Chronicle 176 (2016): 135-153.

Responding to all this:

Ryan, Francis Xavier. “Die Legende IMP.AV.X auf den Denaren des Triumvirn Caldus.” Schweizer Münzblätter = Gazette Numismatique Suisse 56, no. 222 (2006): 39-42. Doi: 10.5169/seals-171948

Badian, Ernst. “Two numismatic phantoms: the false priest and the spurious son.” Arctos 32 (1998): 45-60.

Evans, Richard J.. “The denarius issue of CALDVS IIIVIR and associated problems.” The Ancient History Bulletin V (1991): 129-134.

Dammit.  I hate when I think I agree with Crawford and then start scratching the surface…  This is RRC 294/1 (Dated 113/112 Crawford, 110 Mattingly).

The problem: gladiators don’t fight with whips.   Or if they do I cannot find a textual reference (and I’m pretty good at that). Also, , the man with a whip is clearly dominant and also armed with a sheathed sword.

Crawford is in agreement with Smith 1875. But the Tertullian (de Spec. 21.4) cited by Smith is useless as it just has the gladiators made to fight by attendants with whips, and that is also in Seneca.  Whips are how you control slaves.

The alternate view is that the type depicts a scene of slave suppression (Numismatic Circular 11; Crawford also attributes this ‘fantastic explanation’ to Babelon; so also Grueber in BMCRR).

Lots of these sources make the senior T. Didius (father of cos. 98) a praetor in 138 BCE fighting slaves in Sicily.  And it is true we don’t know who was fighting slaves in Sicily that year and there is gap in our known Praetors that would accommodate Didius, but we’ve got no other testimony beyond this coin it seems (Here I’m following MRR who does not include Didius Sr. in any rank above Tr. Pl.).

I have an itch in the back of my brain that the scene of former enslavers cowing the self-liberating enslaved by laying down arms and picking up the whip.  This is a scene from a Massinger play set in Sicily during the Roman slave revolt.  But I swear that is not where I have it from.  I know my ancient texts better than my early modern dramas….

AND YES! I found it … (OR rather Edwards 1964 did)  its from Herodotus or Trogus:

So Crawford is right that it isn’t attested in the Sicilian Slave War but it is an ancient historical trope!  I hate changing my mind but I really can’t see this as a gladiatorial combat scene.

“Men of Scythia, see what we are about! We are fighting our own slaves; they slay us, and we grow fewer; we slay them, and thereafter shall have fewer slaves. Now therefore my counsel is that we drop our spears and bows, and go to meet them each with his horsewhip in hand. As long as they saw us armed, they thought themselves to be our peers and the sons of our peers; let them see us with whips and no weapons of war, and they will perceive that they are our slaves; and taking this to heart they will not abide our attack.”

My husband and I enjoy falling asleep to Herodotus which is why this is so familiar

Later Follow up Post

(Or Gryphon.  Spelling variations make searching for coins on my blog a pain.)

RRC 384/1

Update 1-20-23:

This post should have had Lanuvium, Lavinium, Juno, and Papius as key words.

I must read more about the Pantanacci finds.

Carroll, Maureen. 2019. “MATER MATUTA, ‘FERTILITY CULTS’ AND THE INTEGRATION OF WOMEN IN RELIGIOUS LIFE IN ITALY IN THE FOURTH TO FIRST CENTURIES BC.” Papers of the British School at Rome 87 (10): 1-45. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068246218000399.