This post is a real hot mess of literary citations. Read on only if you dare.
—
Why did so many Greek communities end up in debt to powerful Romans?
No word here about the creditors, but we see that Sulla’s own need for funding for his march on Rome is a key component. Even if the poleis are borrowing from fellow Greeks at the origin they are still entering debt to accommodate Roman leadership.
Now my current project joins up with my last one on the 80s BCE (Forthcoming in proceedings of the RACOM conference):
The historiographer in me is just delighted with how Appian seamlessly draws us from the Social War and the Roman debt crisis in the aftermath into the violence between Marius and Sulla over the Mithridatic War and all that follows. The murder of Asellio filled with tragedy and pathos and questions of who is right and wrong and the agency of unnamed forces divided between creditors and debtors is a beautiful construct. Letting the reader engage and empathize and feel some sense of understanding of the contentions let civil war erupt, but frankly that isn’t today’s problem.
State interference with interest rates didn’t work but was desired. The state also has no will to punish creditors for protecting their interests (pun intended with violence).
Let’s point out that we don’t know how the 12% APR rule was enforced OR to what types of loans it applied. We do know from Cicero’s letter that the 4% = 48% APR attempted to be backed by and SC for Salamis’ debts to Brutus was considered beyond the pale.
The Lex Valeria of 86 was passed by the consul suffectus L. Valerius Flaccus (the same man who lost his life in the mutiny of Fimbria later that year; this law allowed debts to be repaid as in full with only a quarter of the amount owed. Sources in same older blog post.
[At this point I’ve lost a mass of work thanks to a browser crash…].
I cannot re construct all my notes but here are the clippings
Highlights of above clippings:
Not loaning at interest: Augustus, Manlius, and Atticus
Debt shennanigans in Rome (Caelius’ legislation) and Provinces (Scipio et al) c. 48 BCE
4 century Livy on interest rates and debt relief
193 BCE attempts to get around regulation to charge higher interest
—
Dio 41.37 ‘restoration’ motives questioned…
Lucan – Debt associated with Bribery!
Look again at Cic. Par. Sto. VI on the nature of wealth because of allusions to Crassus and good vs. bad ways of making money. usury is bad. tax collecting good.
Taking state funds and then using them to give out loans. Taking bribes to allievate debt burden of foreigners to other Romans:
Problem of extorting Provincials:
Concordia rests on generosity and gratitude: interest on loans removes gratitude.
The endebted war hero without a name x2!
1% rate x2!
Cato throws the money lenders out of Sardinia
Forfeit property rather than keep a creditor waiting! Lots also in Catiline about this
Selling provincial assets to settle bills in Rome and/or borrowing to instead:
It may not be out of place to state that the hill was originally named the “Querquetulanus,” from the abundance of oak produced on it, and only later took the title of “Caelius” from Caeles Vibenna, an Etruscan chief; who, for marching to the aid of Rome, had received the district as a settlement, either from Tarquinius Priscus or by the gift of another of our kings. On that point the authors disagree: the rest is not in doubt — that Vibenna’s numerous forces established themselves on the level also, and in the neighbourhood of the forum, with the result that the Tuscan Street has taken its name from the immigrants.”
Varro, LL 5.46
Festus:
TUSCUS VICUS. All other authors say that the Tuscan quarter is the name of that part of Rome which was assigned to those Etruscans who remained in the city, and settled there when Porsena withdrew from it after raising the siege; or else that this quarter received this name, because it was inhabited by the two brothers Caeles and Vibenna, who came from Vulci and whom King Tarquin, it is said, brought with him to Rome. But Varro says that this place was so called because inhabitants of Mount Celia were brought there.
One day I’ll track down the Claudian Speech mentioning Mastarna for completeness and also the epigraphic references…
This text was cut from my recent RBN article. It provides a narrative imagining how and why we see a revival of the semunciaat the end of 2nd Cent BCE.
A speculative reconstruction
If I were to create a plausible sequence of events to explain this pattern, it would look something like this. This version is not fact, but rather serves as reasonable narrative to connect our known points of commonality.
In 105 BCE Saturninus was already politically ambitious and was starting to campaign for his first step on the cursus honorum, the quaestorship. He uses his moneyership to make a distinctive coinage that would stand out in the hand of any individual: ‘hey this coin has two heads?!’ ‘wait, this one has two tails!’[1] He also revives the uncia, but he may have left off the ROMA legend. He looks all the way back to Metellus’ issue [256/5] of the late 130s for design template distinguishing his own issue from those created more recently in the 110s. As we saw above Metellus’ reverse design echoed design choices known from Roman-Sicilian bronzes. Perhaps Saturninus used his time in the Roman mint to create a a series of uncia for his own private use. Perhaps to be passed out to potential voters as he campaigned, a coin that was unofficially official and useful, but too small to be a bribe exactly.
The next year Balbus, Tubulus, and Herennius take office. Balbus is a convivial man from Lanuvium, perhaps pressured by family to make a name for himself at Rome even as is own inclinations are otherwise.[2] Herennius is beginning to be known for his oratory and has ambitions beyond his equestrian rank. Marius’ career gives him hope at what might be possible. Perhaps Marius’ rise also inspired Balbus or those pushing him toward politics at Rome. Tubulus has a noble, if ancient and nearly useless, pedigree and yet here he was starting on a public career. His grandfather (or great grandfather) had made a name for himself extorting bribes from litigants as a judge in his praetorship (142 BCE) and when prosecuted went into exile and finally took poison to end his life. Tubulus had been fed on a diet, though, of the accomplishments of his grandfather’s grandfather a hero of the Second Punic War, a time when his family had been true heroes.
This college knew Saturninus has made hay out of his moneyership, landing the quaestorship and was now butting heads with the leaders of the Senate for his ‘unusual’ manner of controlling the trafficking of grain upriver from Ostia to the docks at Rome. A highly visible post that was setting him up well for his political future. Why not follow suit and get creative?
Tubulus takes inspiration from a much older coins he has found, perhaps they were stored in his family tablinum said to have been struck by an ancestor, or perhaps the mint archives (tabularium) preserved examples of older coin types.[3] He liked that it had Diana on it as his C. Tubulus has been stationed at Capua during the Second Punic War. Regardless, he likes that it was old and thus properly traditional regardless of whether it was truly connected to the family history. Tubulus wanting to emphasize his traditionalism copied the obverse of the old coin nearly exactly even the backward sigma.[4] He encourage Balbus and Herennius to follow suit.
Herennius was game and also struck a semuncia and likewise used Diana, but he wasn’t convinced that that backwards sigma was correct and he wasn’t going to copy bad Greek onto his coin. Maybe he had seen small coins from Campania (around Minturniae) that had used cornucopiae on the reverse?[5] He did, however like, the idea of minting uncia in large enough numbers to be useful: with all the ugly small change floating around how could it be a bad idea to make something more legitimate and official.
Thorius had made the family happy by putting Sospita on the coinage, why not please his fellow moneyers too by following suit? He could mark his out but still echo their work. He wasn’t convinced that the backwards sigma was a mistake but rather some other ancient symbol marking the denomination. He had the engraver redraw what he ‘saw’ on the old coin and place it explicitly as a denomination mark on both obverse and reverse. For the obverse he decided to echo rather than emulate his fellow moneyers. If they used Diana why not use an aspect of Apollo and add Veovis’ oak crown?[6] This has some precidence if in a different aspect Apollo on the uncia of Curtius, Silanus, and Domitius. Regardless the oak would nicely echo the oak of the reverse.
Is this picture true? Perhaps in part, but like so much of ancient history it is speculation. Numismatists tend to prefer knowable truths.
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.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 