adventures in my head
I don’t want to loose these words of Dorothy Parker. (source)
This is instead of telephoning
because
I cant look you in the voice.
I simply cannot get that thing done
yet never have done such hard night and day work
never have so wanted anything to be good
and all I have is a pile of paper
covered in WRONG WORDS.
Can only keep at it
and hope to heaven to get it done.
Don’t know why it is so terribly difficult
or I terribly incompetant [sic].
– Dorothy Parker, 1945, a telegram to her editor
So numismatics is exceptionally lucky to have a well developed disciplinary ontology and thus a well established culture of using linked open data, all thanks to nomisma.org.
However, what the heck an ontology actually is and why it is essential to how we use and build digital tools isn’t always super clear, esp. to non-tech people. Max Ved nicely breaks it down for the laiety in these two blog posts:
BMCR 2019.08.47, Master reviews Ann Vasaly, Livy’s Political Philosophy: Power and Personality in Early Rome. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Key excerpt
“Chapter 5 presents the Quinctian family as positive models of patrician behavior, “anti-Claudii” (80), who promote domestic concordia. In Vasaly’s reading, Livy’s Quinctii, especially Quinctius Capitolinus and Cincinnatus, transcend the self-interest and personal ambition so characteristic of the historian’s early republican patricians. Vasaly zeroes in on the speeches of the Quinctii to the plebs to illustrate this aspect of their exemplarity. Capitolinus’ exemplarity lies in his frank assertion to the plebs that their freedoms ought to have limits and his indictment of popular leaders who have not the interests of the state in mind but their own self-promotion. Vasaly notes that Capitolinus’ rhetoric echoes Livy’s presentation of the dangers of plebeian oratory expressed elsewhere in the pentad.
The sixth chapter considers Livy’s presentation of the plebs collectively in the pentad. They are consistently shown to be the foundation of military success but also emotional and volatile, for the most part without prudence, though they occasionally act prudently when they feel respected. Vasaly makes the point that the plebs have the capacity to destabilize the republic but are more likely to be intimidated and abused by patrician rulers. The chapter then examines examples of bad and good leadership of the plebs. The lowest of the low in Livy’s estimation, according to Vasaly, is the elite demagogue who stirs up the plebs out of tyrannical ambition. Conversely, patricians who champion the cause of the people are especially praiseworthy, with the Valerian family being particularly notable in this respect. These patricians pursue concordia, but their specialty is redressing wrongs done to the plebs. Vasaly devotes the rest of the chapter to plebeian figures who, justifiably in the narrator’s view, lead collective action against elite abuse even if that action leads to widespread social unrest.”
What’s up with this deck equipment?
Makes me think of the Corvus on earlier bronzes but looks much different.
Jeton Düştü! Thanks to RRC 453. The figure with Endymion and Luna is not Victory but Aurora.
This is just a small selection of the frequency of the appearance of Victory in these scenes with Endymion. While (thus far) I’ve not found a literary role for Victory/Nike in the narrative most ancient artists clearly found her an essential component. Thus RRC 480/1 should be identified as Luna and Endymion NOT the dream of Sulla.
Thus I (partially) agree with Congrossi and Fears (I have a harder time seeing an allusion to Caesar):
Fears, J. Rufus. “Sulla or Endymion. A reconsideration of a denarius of L. Aemilius Buca.” The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes XX (1975): 29-37.
Abstract: “The reverse of the denarius of L. Aemilius Buca portrays Selene and Endymion, not the dream of Sulla. It was issued after Caesar’s assassination and served as a funeral tribute to him.”
Cf. Fears, J. Rufus. “Sulla or Endymion ? A denarius of L. Aemilius Buca.” American Journal of Archaeology LXXVIII (1974): 165.
Cogrossi, C.. “Il denario di L. Aemilius Buca e la morte di Cesare.” Contributi dell’Istituto di Storia antica dell’Università del Sacro Cuore IV (1976): 169-178.
Abstract: “This denarius must have been struck between the end of April and June 44 BC. J.C. Contrary to the opinion of A. Alföldi (cf. APh XXXIV p. 458), it is not the dream of Sylla that he represents, but the sleep of Endymion, and he thus alludes to the death of Caesar. Neither the title of Dictator nor that of Parens Patriae appears there, but simply that of the monetary L. Buca. The currency, which does not admit the divinity of Caesar, but does not deny him the merits of the great man, corresponds well to this precise moment.”
Nothing about Victory in Borg or Zanker and Ewald, and Platt says the following:
Update 6/11/21:
I’m pretty confident we should see Divus Iulius on the reverse, not the young Caesar (Octavian):
RRC 518/2 – reverse legend reads POPVL * IVSSV
Mimicking language on restored tomb of Bibulus in the forum?
What’s up with the filleted scepter on Antony’s ship series ? Cleopatra’s ships?
RRC 494/3 – Aeneas
RRC 494/42-43 – Cloacina perhaps evokes Tarquin or Tatius legends?! esp the latter when paired with Concordia?
Do the fasces and curule chairs disappear in the Augustan era iconography because they recall regal power (esp. given the lack of Collegiality in the dictatorship)?! Cf. RRC 497/2
RRC 505/3 – diadem
RRC 507/2 – broken scepter but what precisely is victory doing with the diadem?
To what degree is putting one’s own head or the head of one’s living leader on a coin a regal move in the eyes of a Roman audience? I lean away from the significance given prevalence in the civil war post ides period.
Unfinished post…
Cf. posthumous tetradrachms of Philip
Surrender of children imagery. RIC I2 Augustus 200, 201A and 201B,
Kneeling Parthian. RIC I2 Augustus 287-289, 304, 314 (with diademed Herucles restoration reverse), 315
Kneeling Armenian. RIC I2 Augustus 290-292, 305-306
Armenian Standing with Tiara. RIC I (second edition) Augustus 307 (Cf. 514 (victory slaying bull), 515-517 tiara and case, 518-520 standing no tiara)
kneeling (generic?) barbarian 416
Tarpeia (299) implies world of roman kings? Ditto Foedus Gabinium types (363-364, 411).
Cn. Piso’s Numa bronzes (390-396) from c. 16-15 BCE.
Do plowing foundation scenes always imply kingship?! or a regal type act? (cf. 402 but also other earlier)
No wolf and twins? No wolf at all? No Aeneas in the post republican period?
A tweet that turned into a thread that really should have been a blog post so it would be stable and searchable.
screen shots:
Thoughts 3/24/25:
I’m interested that Augustus sits on a bench or subselllium. What is the symbolism of its usage here?
The only use of the term in epigraphy is also in relation to the Saecular Games.
Some colleagues asked if I had something to say about kings on coins after 44 BCE. I have lots to say pre 44 BCE on that topic but I’m trying to work out if I have anything worth saying in print on the evolution and what parameters I might put on such an essay. Hence if you see me posting about stuff later than I usually do that why. Just in the pre-writing survey stages.
I wish the type below was in the footnotes of my book as it is lovely illustration of how aware elite families are of their earlier coin types. This one imitates RRC 401/1.
Update 10-10-22:
Liv Mariah Yarrow 