Main points. A brain dump.

91 BCE – Drusus is said to have mixed bronze with the silver as plebeian tribune. Still, even after testing by drilling, there is no evidence this is true for the denarii of these years. The Plinian tradition(s) want to cast Drusus as greedy and a liar, the historiographer in me wants to see the debasement accusation as just part of this tradition. He is also accused of nearly single-handedly CAUSING the Social War. (early post)

90 BCE – Social War: masses of coins rapidly struck by Romans, The new Italian confederacy issues denarii of their own (debased?). The only significant silver debasement among the Roman coins are for the quinarii, but quinarii were always lower silver content, but irregularly struck. I wonder if Drusus was blamed for the low silver content of these quinarii and the memory came down to us as that passage in Pliny? (RRC 340/2, RRC 341/3, RRC 343/2) Note to self: this debasement difference was confirmed in private correspondence; check email for details when doing final write up.

91-90 BCE – semiuncial standard introduced for bronze and we also get the rare little ELP silver sestertii (issued by Piso RRC 340/3 and Silanus RRC 337/4). The dating depends on whether it was Gnaeus the Marian brother or Gaius the Sullan Brother who brought about the lex Papiria, but I lean Marian as did Crawford and Mattingly. (early post) This view is supported by the heavy (if highly irratic) weight of Sullan asses as compared to those of the semuncial standard (I use Macer’s for the visual). Those Sullan asses on something closer to an uncial standard were the last asses before the next civil wars. Small change (i.e. fractional bronzes) seems to have been a popular type of politics not one actually useful to the state finances and certainly not something Sulla himself supported spending money on.

89 BCE – There is a big problem with debt following the Social War. Asellio as Praetor gets murdered by money lenders in the forum while offering sacrifice and no one ever turns in the mob ring leaders. They were angry he was upholding an old law against usury.

88 BCE – Sulla and Pompeius Rufus pass a law that seems to limit interest rates and perhaps erases 10% of existing debts (Festus 516 L)

88 BCE – Cinna is said to have (a) tried and failed to mobilized enslaved peoples by offers of freedom (an old trope), and (b) to have incited revolution in NEW citizens in Tibur, Praeneste, and as far as Nola, specifically he used them as a source of funding for his efforts (App. BC 1.65). There is more testimony of further money collection from allied cities, i.e. those who defected with the offer of citizenship to the Roman side in the Social War, after the administering of military oaths (App. BC 1.66). An analysis of historiographical tradition behind all this: Heredia Chimeno, Carlos. “Apiano, el « Cinnanum Tempus » y el nuevo régimen.” Aevum 93, no. 1 (2019): 155-174, esp. p. 159. cf. Also by the same author, Heredia Chimeno, Carlos. “Consideraciones historiográficas en torno al « Cinnanum tempus ».” Faventia 41 (2019): 21-36. [non vide]

COULD THE DEBASEMENT IN THE COIN BE FROM RECYCLING ALLIED COINAGE OF THE SOCIAL WAR!?!!

88-87 BCE – Roman issues are debased by a few percent, both those struck by Cinnan and Sullan partisans. There is however no evidence thus far that these issues are hoarded differently (new better evidence sent by Lockyear supporting this!), or cut more or subject to more bankers mark, but they are also slightly lower weight and contain more striking errors (double strikes, brockages, etc…) Future coin of the Cinnan regime is not debased in any meaningful way.

86 BCE – Influx of money from Ptolemy Alexander?! See Crawford RRC II, 605, citing Badian 1967. My take on this is that Crawford probably put too much emphasis on Badian’s reconstruction (new post). BUT now private correspondence suggests in fact trace elements show new influx of silver consistent to with Ptolemaic sources (see email)

86 BCE – Gratidianus as praetor urbanus takes credit for some sensible and popular monetary policy that had been developed in committee. We don’t know either the problem or the solution. (round up of evidence and interpretations) What is the key evidence? Cicero says the no one knew what they had (Off. 3.80: ut nemo posset scire, quid haberet). Pliny says a igitur ars facta denarios probare (NH 33.132). The key word here is probare. Which can mean to test, but I think is better taken to mean approved or validated in this context. Why do I think that? Well probare is something that happens to both bronze coins and also ship rams in the 1st Punic War (earlier post, follow up). Probare seems to be an action taken by a Roman magistrate to deem something acceptable for use (see new post). This makes me sympathetic to Heinrichs 2008 view that Gratidianus made it a crime not to accept a coin at face value unless proven fake (e.g. with a banker’s mark that showed it to be plated), even if it was low weight or worn, just like the lex Cornelia in the Sent. Paul. He may have also fixed the bronze to silver exchange rate or that might have already been fixed de facto if semi-uncial and uncial bronzes all had to be accepted at face value. Cicero’s iactabatur…nummus, “coin in flux”, is such a strange metaphoric phrase it is hard to put too much emphasis on it beyond perhaps meaning that the lex Papiria caused more problems than it solved.

86-85 BCE – revival of Argentum Publicum legend use on coinage. …

84 BCE – Cinna and Carbo fearing Sulla’s well-resourced return start collecting Money (and other stuff) up and down Italy (App. BC 1.76)

83 BCE – By contrast whereas Sulla’s enemies in the city are taking money from all over Italy (App. BC 81), Sulla is said to be spending money to get more Italic troops (App. BC 86) Capitoline burns, perhaps effecting mint operations?

82 BCE – Sulla specifically considers the contribution or lending or borrowing of money to be a crime worthy of massacre, banishment or property confiscation (App. BC 96)

lex Cornelia (Sent. Paul.) established perhaps because Sulla as dictator had to turn over existing legislation but also needed to keep or re-instituted/codify those financial solutions that actually worked.

---

Flower, Harriet I.. “Rome’s first civil war and the fragility of republican political culture.” In Citizens of discord: Rome and its civil wars, Edited by Breed, Brian W., Damon, Cynthia and Rossi, Andreola Francesca., 73-86. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Pr., 2010. Abstract: The first true Roman civil war happened in 88 B.C. when Sulla marched on Rome, not in the violence surrounding the Gracchi in the 2nd cent. The traditional republican government of the « nobiles » came to a decisive end in the early 80s, specifically with the marches on Rome by Sulla and Cinna. The interpretation of the 80s as a political watershed is based on two fundamental observations : 1) The rupture caused by civil war in the city’s political life and social fabric was stark. 2) The republic set up by Sulla through his legislation in 81 was significantly different from what had come before in Roman history

The above is not unlike her argument in her own book on the Roman republics, but a nice focused treatment of the topic.

Cf. Morstein-Marx, Robert. “Consular appeals to the army in 88 and 87: the locus of legitimacy in late-republican Rome.” In Consuls and res publica: holding high office in the Roman Republic, Edited by Beck, Hans, Duplá, Antonio, Jehne, Martin and Pina Polo, Francisco., 259-278. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Pr., 2011. Abstract: If one sets aside some traditional but questionable assumptions about the disaffection, disloyalty, or degeneration of the post-Marian army, one may appreciate more precisely the issues of political legitimacy that arose in 88 and 87 B.C. Sulla’s march can hardly have been generally viewed as a coup against the state. Arguably, the character and role of the consulship were central issues in the civil conflicts in which Sulla in 88 and Cinna in 87 were involved, especially in the minds of the legions who followed them. Attention to the claims of legitimacy that these men and their followers staked casts light on contemporary understanding of the meaning of the consulship in republican political culture. Texts considered include Cicero, Att. 9, 10, 2-3 ; and Appian 1, 57 and 1, 65-66.

I want to read something on Cinnan era legislation and Sulla’s reactions to it… I’ve not found the right study yet.

I’m reading:

Frank, Tenney. “On Some Financial Legislation of the Sullan Period.” The American Journal of Philology 54, no. 1 (1933): 54–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/290251

And finding it very good to think with and through. He’s trying to make historical sense of an odd bit of Festus (516 L) which I’m sad to say I’ve never thought about before today:

Unciaria lex appellari est quam L. Sulla et Q. Pom[peius Rufus] tulerunt qua sanctum est ut debitores decimam partem …

“The law called that of the twelfth was carried by Sulla and Pompeius Rufus (coss. 88) by which it was sanctioned that debtors an tenth part…[the rest is lost]” (my translation)

It just cuts off and that is all we have. The unciaria could refer to a 1% per month interest rate for loans (=12% per annum). The assumption is that the decimam refers to some sort of debt relief and that the whole law was trying to address financial tensions as typified by the murder of the praetor Asellio in 89 BCE (last blog post).

Frank connects the Asellio incident with Senatorial attempts to regain control of juries, suggesting that this was motivated by a concern to adjudicate disputed debts — a clever view if not one able to be substantiated.

Frank’s big goal is to make sense of why a senatorial backer like Sulla would engage in debt relief, in this he’s arguing against Mommsen’s views. I’m less interested in this question and more in how he collects relevant evidence and reads it.

So, he reads Pliny NH 33.46

Livius Drusus in tribunatu plebei octavam partem aeris argento miscuit.

As meaning that every 8th coin was plated citing Grueber BMCRR I.200 for this interpretation. Debernardi has done a great deal of work on plated coin and seems to lean towards the belief that such plated coins could have indeed been issued by the Roman mint. I’m deeply skeptical and this seems an odd reading of the Latin, here but still Drusus didn’t debase the coins and when the silver content does dip in the denariii early 80s under the Cinnan regime it is only by a few precent. In a past post I point out that Pliny seems to be following a tradition that casts Drusus as greedy and dishonest and this passage is just one of a pattern pointing in this direction.

“Livius Drusus in his plebian tribunate mixed an eighth part bronze with silver” (my translation)

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, but seems NOT to be the son of the moneyer, but rather his nephew). This law allowed debts to be repaid as in full with only a quarter of the amount owed (Vell. 2.23.2; cf. Cic. Font. 1.1; Quinct. 17; Sall. Cat. 33.2). Frank treats this as apply to private acocunts primarily, but the evidence from Cicero’s defense of Fonteius (the missing moneyer for whom no coins exist, see RRC 347) suggests that this was a particular benefit to the Cinnan regime in trying to settle its own public accounts. And it suggests that those account records were public:

Cic. Font. 5:

duorum magistratuum, quorum uterque in pecunia maxima tractanda procurandaque versatus est, triumviratus et quaesturae, ratio sic redditur, iudices, ut in eis rebus quae ante oculos gestae sunt, ad mu<l>tos pertinuerunt, confectae publicis privatisque tabulis sunt, nulla significatio furti, nulla alicuius delicti suspicio reperiatur

“of two magistracies, each of which is occupied in handling and dealing with large sums of money, the triumvirate and the quaestorship, such accurate accounts have been rendered, that in those things which were done in the sight of men, which affected many men’s interests, and which were set forth both in public and private registers, no hint of robbery, no suspicion of any offence can possibly arise.” (Loeb translation)

HOW DID FRONTEIUS SURVIVE SULLA’S RETURN?! So many didn’t even those who went to Spain on the winning side!

More tomorrow perhaps…

The sentence of interest:

Giuliano, Antonio. “Busti femminili da Palestrina.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung = Bullettino dell’Istituto Archeologico Germanico, Sezione Romana LX-LXI (1953-1954): 172-183. [on file]

All the above is from the Etruria and Central Italy volume of the NY Carlsberg Glyptotek catalogue.

A specimen that made me think of this bust and that sentence as illustrated in

Stannard, C. “The Adjustment al marco of the Weight of Roman Republican Denarii Blanks by Gouging” in Metallurgy 3 (London, 1993). Available Online

Update 5-3-23: Giuliano 1953 finally arrived with images in my ILL inbox! These are the coin obverses he uses to illustrate this Italic style he sees as in parallel to the busts.

I’m also intrigued that we also have names on a number of bust bases. As far as I can tell none of the surviving names have surviving faces, but that these bust had once upon a time personal identities is really v cool and makes them much more portraits than ‘just’ mass made votives.

One example just to round out this post. Plenty more in the article itself:

---

Giuliano

Non coin material

Not a research day, but had a good convo on research with colleague. Sorted lots of UK logistics and grant logistics, real progress there. Also personal life stuff. Tomorrow is another day.

The topography of A. Sempronius Asellio‘s death (89 BCE) confused me. Where were the shops between the temple of Castor and the Vestals? The distance is very short, 50 meters or so and there was the lacus Juturna there. Could the text mean that he turned and ran all the way back to the tabernae veteres in front of the Basilica Sempronia? Would not going up into the temple of Castor have been a better place to seek sanctuary? But the course of action need not be logical. There have been many excavations in and around the Temple of Castor in recent years. I wonder if they might shed light on where Asellio might have fled. I also wonder if the mob that attacked him might not have been bankers and money changers working in the same area who made an opportunistic attack when the Praetor was in their vicinity.

I’m recalling also the work of Kondratieff on the topography of this region. I must check if he discusses this passage.

Kondratieff, Eric. “Finding Libo: numismatic, epigraphic and topographic evidence for the « cursus honorum » of L. Scribonius L. f. Libo, cos. 34 B.C.E.” Historia 64, no. 4 (2015): 428-466.

Kondratieff, Eric John. “The urban praetor’s tribunal in the Roman republic.” In Spaces of justice in the Roman world, Edited by De Angelis, Francesco. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition; 35, 89-126. Leiden: Brill, 2010

Kondratieff, Eric John. “Reading Rome’s evolving civic landscape in context: tribunes of the plebs and the praetor’s tribunal.” Phoenix 63, no. 3-4 (2009): 322-360.

Cf. RRC 416 and RRC 417

My favorite detail of the attributes of Liberalitas is her money shovel. Sometimes its called an abacus (wrong) or accounting board (a plausible, but potentially misleading term). This tool was used to ensure each individual got the same number of coins in distributions of imperial largesse. On the Arch of Constantine you can see the tool in action on a larger scale than on the coins. Notice the coin board has 9 recesses and the coins from it are being dumped into the outstretched toga of the man below it.

This blog post is just to remind myself to try to squeeze the lex Thoria in with the other meager data points on the gens Thoria should I ever circle back to them. And to think about the logistics of the distribution of money to the poor in the Republic, albeit short lived. I wonder how much of the ritual and symbolism of Liberalitas from the empire could be transposed back onto the late second century experiment in state pay outs. (more images below)

This passage was what got me thinking in this direction this morning…

…a law was enacted to permit the holders to sell the land about which they had quarrelled; for even this had been forbidden by the law of the elder Gracchus. At once the rich began to buy the allotments of the poor, or found pretexts​ for seizing them by force. So the condition of the poor became even worse than it was before, until Spurius Thorius, a tribune of the people, brought in a law providing that the work of distributing the public domain should no longer be continued, but that the land should belong to those in possession of it, who should pay rent for it to the people, and that the money so received should be distributed; and this distribution was a kind of solace to the poor, but it did not help to increase the population. By these devices the law of Gracchus — a most excellent and useful one, if it could have been carried out — was once for all frustrated, and a little later the rent itself was abolished at the instance of another tribune. So the plebeians lost everything …

Appian BC 1.27

The only mention of this earlier on this blog was on the grain supply time line post. I have thought and read more about it and wrote some notes about the same time I made that timeline, they should be in the drafts file of the first version of my coin book, but I won’t go dig those out now.

A Thorius Flaccus was Proconsul in the early to mid 20s BCE and issued bronze coins in both Nicaea and Nicomedia including some with his own portrait.

I’ve blogged about the Lanuvium connection of the Thorii before because of their use of Juno Sospita imagery, and I’ve written about Lucius Thorius as an issuer of small change (1st post, 2nd post). I mention in both instances, Lucius’ reputation as an Epicurean and tried to reconcile Cicero’s characterization with his clear engagement in public affairs, even to the extent of dying in a civil war.

Round up of some typical distribution scenes on imperial coinage all but one include the money shovel:

---

non coin portion.

I’m working a half day today. Kiddos turn 8 tomorrow and beloved needs some help pulling off three days of festivities. Coins can wait. I have between now and noon to give more attention to the money and moneyers of the 80s BCE. I also have a convo with a colleague to talk about career stuff. It’s good on sabbatical to step back and think about what work I want to do long term. I need to get on UK logistics and even a little Rome logistics.

Primary Texts and Translations

Cic. Off. 3.80: Even our kinsman Gratidianus failed on one occasion to perform what would be a good man’s duty: in his praetor­ship the tribunes of the people summoned the college of praetors to council, in order to adopt by joint resolution a standard of value for our currency; for at that time the value of money was so fluctuating that no one could tell how much he was worth. In joint session they drafted an ordinance, defining the penalty and the method of procedure in cases of violation of the ordinance, and agreed that they should all appear together upon the rostra in the afternoon to publish it. And while all the rest withdrew, some in one direction, some in another, Marius (Gratidianus) went straight from the council-chamber to the rostra and published individually what had been drawn up by all together. And that coup, if you care to know, brought him vast honour; in every street statues of him were erected; before these incense and candles burned. In a word, no one ever enjoyed greater popularity with the masses. (Loeb trans.)

…ut res nummaria de communi sententia constitueretur; iactabatur enim temporibus illis nummus sic, ut nemo posset scire, quid haberet.

…in order that a joint opinion on money matters be established; for in those times coin was so tumultuous (or, such a fraught issue) that no one could tell what he had. (my trans)

Dyck 1996: 600 notes in his commentary that this is the ONLY use of iactari to refer to money matters and that if the metaphor of a tumultuous sea was not so obvious from its regular uses to discuss the state politics he might have expected a modifying quasi or ut ita dicam. Perhaps the best translation might be to say it was fraught or political topic. We cannot say it means the literal value of individual coins fluctuated based on a strange metaphoric verb.

Cic. Leg. 3.36: “And indeed our grandfather, as long as he lived, with singular virtue resisted Marcus Gratidius, whose sister, our grandmother, he had as wife. Gratidius was proposing a law of ballots in this town [Arpinum]. Gratidius, as it is said, stirred up a flood in a ladle, which later his son Marius stirred up the Aegean Sea. And indeed with our [grandfather] * * * when the matter was referred to Marcus Scaurus the consul he said “If only Marcus Cicero, you had preferred to employ that mind and virtue of yours with us in the highest republic rather than in that of your town”

Et avus quidem noster singulari virtute in hoc municipio quoad vixit restitit M.Gratidio cuius in matrimonio sororem aviam nostram habebat, ferenti legem tabellariam. Excitabat enim fluctus in simpulo ut dicitur Gratidius, quos post filius eius Marius in Aegaeo excitavit mari. Ac nostro quidem avo, cum res esset ad se delata, M. Scaurus consul: ‘Utinam’ inquit ‘M. Cicero isto animo atque virtute in summa re publica nobiscum versari quam in municipali maluisses!’

The reference to the Aegean is not clear to me–is it literal? his acts had impact in the Greek East? or is it metaphoric a big sea versus a little ladle? The passage does lay out that Gratidianus was the cousin of Cicero: the son of his great uncle and that the two families had close, if fractious, dealings across the political divide. legem tabellariam should be taken to mean regarding the introduction of the secret ballot in local government.

Pliny NH 33.132: The triumvir Antonius alloyed the silver denarius with iron, and forgers put an alloy of copper in silver coins, while others also reduce the weight, the proper coinage being 84 denarii from a pound of silver. Consequently a method was devised of assaying the denarius, under a law that was so popular that the common people unanimously district by district voted statues to Marius Gratidianus. And it is a remarkable thing that in this alone among arts spurious methods are objects of study, and a sample of a forged denarius is carefully examined and the adulterated coin is bought for more than genuine ones. (Loeb trans)

Miscuit denario triumvir Antonius ferrum, miscent aera falsae monetae, alii e<t> ponder<i> subtrahunt, cum sit iustum LXXXIIII e libris signari. igitur ars facta denarios probare, tam iucunda plebei lege, ut Mario Gratidiano vicatim totas statuas dicaverit. mirumque, in hac artium sola vitia discuntur et falsi denarii spectatur exemplar pluribusque veris denariis adulterinus emitur.

Antonius the triumvir mixed [something] with the denarius, fake money is mixed with bronze, others reduce the weight, when it should be struck is 84 from a pound. Therefore means were created to authenticate denarii, so pleasing was the law to the plebs that throughout the neighborhoods so many statues were dedicated to Marius Gratidianus. … [my translation]

Plin. NH 34.27: “At Rome also the tribes in all the districts set up statues to Marius Gratidianus, as we have stated, and likewise threw them down again at the entrance of Sulla.”

Val. Max. 9.2.1: How cruelly did he conduct himself toward M. Marius the praetor, who was dragged in the sight of the people to the tomb of the Lutatian family, where he did not put him to death, till he had gauged out his eyes, and broken the limbs of that unfortunate man! I am relating things that hardly seem credible. And yet because M. Plaetorius grew faint upon seeing the execution of Marius, he promptly slew him. Here was a novel punisher of pity, for whom to behold wickedness with distaste, was to commit a crime. (on this see violence see Marshall 1985)

Cic. De Orat. 2.262: From the ironical use of words: as when Crassus spoke for Aculeo before Marcus Perperna as judge, and Lucius Aelius Lamia appeared for Gratidianus against Aculeo, and Lamia, who was deformed, as you know, offered impertinent interruptions, Crassus said, ‘Let us hear this beautiful youth.’ When a laugh followed, ‘I could not form my own shape,’ said Lamia, ‘but I could form my understanding.’   ‘Then,’ said Crassus, ‘let us hear this able orator;’ when a greater laugh than before ensued. Such jests are agreeable as well in grave as in humorous speeches.

Cic. De Orat. 1.178: When I myself lately defended the case of Sergius Orata, on a private suit against our friend Antonius, did not my whole defence turn upon a point of law? For when Marius Gratidianus had sold a house to Orata, and had not specified, in the deed of sale, that any part of the building owed service, we argued, that for whatever encumbrance attended the thing sold, if the seller knew of it, and did not make it known, he ought to indemnify the purchaser.

Cic. Off. 3.67: Marcus Marius Gratidianus, a kinsman of ours, sold back to Gaius Sergius Orata the house which he himself had bought a few years before from that same Orata. It was subject to an encumbrance, but Marius had said nothing about this fact in stating the terms of sale. The case was carried to the courts. Crassus was counsel for Orata; Antonius was retained by Gratidianus. Crassus pleaded the letter of the law that “the vendor was bound to make good the defect, for he had not declared it, although he was aware of it”; Antonius laid stress upon the equity of the case, leading that, “inasmuch as the defect in question had not been unknown to Sergius (for it was the same house that he had sold to Marius), no declaration of it was needed, and in purchasing it back he had not been imposed upon, for he knew to what legal liability his purchase was subject.

Cic. Brut. 3.223: I have also remarked, that Cn. Carbo, M. Marius, and several others of the same stamp, who would not have merited the attention of an audience that had any taste for elegance, were extremely well suited to address a tumultuous crowd.

Cic. Brut. 2.168: Q. Rubrius Varro, who with C. Marius, was declared an enemy by the Senate, was likewise a warm, and a very spirited prosecutor. My relation, M. Gratidius, was a plausible speaker of the same kind, well versed in the Greek literature, formed by nature for the profession of eloquence, and an intimate acquaintance of M. Antonius: he commanded under him in Cilicia, where he lost his life: and he once commenced a prosecution against C. Fimbria–[this Gratidius was] the father of M. Marius Gratidianus.

Ascon. Cic. Tog. Cand. 84C (75): Catilina had also cut off the head of M. Marius Gratidianus, a man in great favor with the people, who on this account was twice praetor, and had carried it through the city in his own hand–a charge which he hurls at him several times through out this speech. To be sure this Gratidianus had been linked by close family ties with Cicero.

Ascon. Cic. Tog. Cand. 89C-90C (80): [quoting from Cicero’s original speech] “From the plebs? To whom your brutality presented a spectacle such that no one can set eyes upon you without a groan and a remembrance of sorrow?” [end quote] He cast in his teeth the reproach of having brandished the head of that same Marius Gratidianus.

[ps.?] Q. Cic. Comm. Petit. 10.2

Only because Antonius is afraid of his own shadow, whereas Catiline does not even fear the law. Born in his father’s beggary, bred in debauchery with his sister, grown up in civil slaughter, his first entry into public life was a massacre of Roman Knights (for Sulla had put Catiline in sole charge of those Gauls we remember, who kept mowing off the heads of Titinius and Nanneius and Tanusius and all). Among them he killed with his own hands his sister’s husband, the excellent Quintus Caucilius, a Roman Knight, a neutral in politics, a man always inoffensive by nature and by that time also through advancing age. Need I go on? He to be running for the consulship with you—he who scourged Marcus Marius, the Roman People’s darling, all around the town before the Roman People’s eyes, drove him to the tomb, mangled him there with every torture, and with a sword in his right hand, holding his head of hair in his left, severed the man’s neck as he barely lived and breathed and carried the head in his hand, while rills of blood flowed between his fingers! And then he lived with actors and gladiators as his accomplices, the former in lust, the latter in crime—he who could not enter any place…

Sen. de Ira 18: Marcus Marius, to whom the people erected statues in every street, whom they worshipped with offerings of frankincense and wine—this man by the command of Lucius Sulla had his ankles broken, his eyes gouged out, his tongue and his hands cut off, and little by little and limb by limb Sulla tore him to pieces, just as if he could make him die as many times as he could maim him. And who was it who executed this command? Who but Catiline, already training his hands to every sort of crime? He hacked him to pieces before the tomb of Quintus Catulus, doing violence to the ashes of that gentlest of men, above which a hero—of evil influence, no doubt, yet popular and loved not so much undeservedly as to excess—shed his blood drop by drop. It was meet that a Marius should suffer these things, that a Sulla should give the orders, and that a Catiline should execute them, but it was not meet that the state should receive in her breast the swords of her enemies and her protectors alike.

Incomplete, to be continued

Mentions in recent Scholarship

From SCHWEI, DAVID. “Exchange Rates, Neronian Silver Standards, and a Long-Term Plan to Unify the Empire’s Mints.” The Numismatic Chronicle (1966-) 177 (2017): 107–34. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26637374.

Bransbourg, Gilles. “Fides et Pecunia Numerata Part II: The Currencies of the Roman Republic.” American Journal of Numismatics (1989-) 25 (2013): 179–242. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43580629

P.216

P. 218

Early blog posts have discussed: Heinrichs, Johannes. “Währungstechnische Regelungen Im Amtsjahr Des Prätors M. Marius Gratidianus (85/4 v. Chr.).” Zeitschrift Für Papyrologie Und Epigraphik 166 (2008): 261–67. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20476537.

Simply put he sees the substance of Gratidianus’ decree being about accepting coin unless objectively fake, i.e. the terms attributed to a lex Cornelia in the Sent. Paul.

“The norm of 84 denarii per libra was not fundamentally abandoned, but remained (ideally) valid until the late Roman period. However, certain fluctuation margins could have been decreed, and more important: the compulsion to accept coins as soon as they were declared authentic. This was not a general decoupling of weight and value, but a step in this direction. Since Gratidianus’ edict, the Roman coin was essentially something different from what it had been up to then.”

[A human modified machine translation of his final paragraph]

I am very sympathetic to Heinrichs’ view.

Debernardi Pierluigi. Plated coins, false coins?. In: Revue numismatique, 6e série – Tome 166, année 2010 pp. 337-381. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/numi.2010.2941

P. 350:

Encyclopedia Entry Round Up

“At the end of the 80s he was legate to Sulla (Sall. Hist. 1,46) [2. 110ff.]. He probably did not murder his brother [3. 1688], but he probably killed M. Marius Gratidianus (Q. Cic. comm. pet. 10; Ascon. 84; 90C), the brother of his wife Gratidia (Schol. Bern. in Luc. 2,173; Sall. Hist. 1,45) [2. 105f.]”

from: von Ungern-Sternberg, Jürgen (Basle), “Catilina”, in: Brill’s New Pauly

OCD³ entry, painfully terse on primary evidence, but the acknowledgement we don’t know his plan is sound.

How to make fun maps about coins!

Find a numishare website to suit your taste (CRRO, OCRE, HRO, CHRR, IGCH, IRIS, Tokens…)

Search something you find interesting My question here is: What mints used Heracles iconography before Alexander the Great?

Take a quick look through your results to make sure they make sense and then look in the upper right hand corner and click under Geographic where it says KML. If you are in a database with both Findspots and Mints be sure to click the one you will find meaningful for your query.

Now you need to know where your computer hides downloaded files. Mine always puts them in … wait for it… the downloads file. Anyway, sorry about that. Yours might put it somewhere different.

Open Google earth in a new tab. Click on the icon that looks like a pointer on a flat surface, for me it is the fifth icon down on the left hand side. What you need is to get it to open up to give you that new project button.

One you have option click Import KML file from computer.

Select your file and click open

Instantaneously you will have your map and be able to select and edit the data and add more to suit your needs:

Once you save this project you can even import more KML files to the same projects from other search results.

If you are an ANS member (or could be convinced to become one) you could join me live today.

This is a recap of my Rome presentation back in February.

YouTube link. (added 4-3-23)

Next week I’m at Lafayette College (Easton, PA). I don’t think this one is live streamed or recorded but it is Public. I’m hoping that I can share PDFs of the final panels from the installation of the exhibit next week. I’m just so proud of the student work to make this exhibit.

---

Self Accountability Section

No smelting for me this weekend. I didn’t get on the logistics early enough in the week. Avoidance has consequences (just ask Jonah!). I’m making progress on my prosopographical work as you may have noticed on the blog here (Norbanus, Censorinus, Lentulus), but I want to circle back to Gratidianus, and there are a few other characters from the time period that need attention. I also need to figure out if I’m doing more with the hoards or not (that involves asking another human for something, which I am noticing is not always my strong suit). I might play with some metrological data on the denarii of the 80s later today. That type of spreadsheet and data visualization work always makes me happy and it would be useful for a colleague. I like being useful to others. Maybe I should assume others feel the same when I ask stuff?! I said yes to a conference in October, big pros include great line up and no need to get on an airplane, only con is pre-ciculated papers, a very productive format but one the involves much more work up front. I need to work on UK logistics and means probably scrounging up more money and that also involves ask other humans for things, clearly again a point of avoidance. Gotta notice those patterns and keep pushing myself to grow.

I learned to write by holding myself accountable on this blog last sabbatical, maybe I can learn some other useful professional skills via this blog again this sabbatical.

I can’t say I’ve ever thought much about this type or its moneyer before, except perhaps in terms of the representation of Mars (earlier post). The fashion for showing the obverse deity seen from behind started with RRC 294/4, RRC 297/1 (I would have reverse the issue numbers of Ti. Q. and Blasio to make the Bronze come after the Silver but that’s just me.), and RRC 298/1. The are all assumed to be a single college of moneyers which Crawford put c. 112-111 BCE and Mattingly might nudge down to 109 BCE. About 10 years later a Lentulus Marcellinus (presumed identity; RRC 329/1) revived the seen from behind bust but made it face the other way. Then another 10 years and we get our Lentulus, different god, same view point. It occurs just two more times after that.

The moneyer of RRC 329 is connected with this passage:

M. Marcellus, the father of Aeserninus, though not reckoned a professed pleader, was a prompt, and, in some degree, a practised speaker; as was also his son P. Lentulus.

Cic. Brut. 136

If this is right it is hard to find any close family connect to the moneyer of RRC 345 even as they are both apparently adopted into the Cornelii Lentuli, but different branches.

It is typically assumed that the Moneyer of 88 BCE is also the Consul of 72 and the same man who served on Pompeius Strabo’s concilium at Asculum the year before.

If true this makes the moneyer a life-long supporter of Pompey through a connection with his father. There are however other identifications of the “Cn. Cornelius Cn. f. (trib.) Pal.” in the inscription. It would, however, be a very neat connection because the Consuls of 72 BCE carried bills to validate grants of citizenship by Pompey in Spain (Cic. Balb. 19 and 32-33, cf. 38), which were not unlike the action of Pompey’s own father at Asculum documented in the above inscription!

Just two years after being consul (70 BCE), he became Censor, and the very first censorship held since Sulla’s dicatorship, and thus the first to enroll the new Italian citizens. This was also the year of Pompey’s first consulship. Should we imagine them campaigning together? I think we perhaps should. By 67 BCE Lentulus (cos. 72) was rewarded by Pompey with the role of Legatus pro Praetore under Pompey’s command (imperium maius) against the Pirates and probably stayed with Pompey through the war against Mithridates but this isn’t certain.

It is hard to retroject these later allegiances earlier, but it does seem highly unlikely a Marian or Cinnan partisan would have been so trusted by Pompey. We might say that if we are right to put RRC 345/1 in 88BCE and put Lentulus and Censorinus in the same college, that they represent the polar opposites of the factional politics of the day. We must imagine Lentulus looking to the consuls Sulla and Pompeius Rufus (cf. RRC 434), not the Marians for leadership in this dangerous political moment.

Finally I’ll note that Victory in a Biga, a conservative, even old fashioned reverse choice, had been used by two huge and recent issues RRC 337 and RRC 344/3.

Social War

There are numerous slingshot bullets from Pompeius Strabo’s attack on Asculum during the Social War. That’s Pompey “the Great” ‘s dad. (ILLRP 1092, CIL 9.6086).

The case of Pompeius on the others is disputed and in the past some of the POMP legends have been read ROMA but this looks like an error.

Servile War

Perugia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale dell’Umbria, collezione Rossi Scotti, inv. com. 397/32, photo by Lucio BENEDETTI (source)

Antiquarianism and glandes

Benedetti, Lucio. Glandes Perusinae : Revisione E Aggiornamenti / Di Lucio Benedetti. Roma: Quasar, 2012. Print. Opuscula Epigraphica ; 13.

---

Earlier Post on glans, glandes (slingshot bullets) of Sertorius, Prusine War, and one of either Pompey himself or his son.

— Update 1-22-24 —

BnF

---

Update 9-11-25

Undated Bullet from Athens: