That the four moneyers who issued the coins figuring in this study should be considered the members of one college has never been proved up to this time. The possibility that Publius Clodius, Lucius Livineius Regulus, Lucius Mussidius Longus, 8 and Caius Vibius Varus were colleagues was explored years ago; Mommsen assumed them to form a college which he dated to the year 38 B.C. 9 Later, however, in publishing the Vigatto hoard, he suggested that Regulus and Mussidius be dated to the college of 43, having as colleagues P. Accoleius Lariscolus 10 and Petillius Capitolinus. 11 The main argument for the rearrangement was the want of any coin of Clodius or Varus bearing the portrait of Lepidus, while both Mussidius and Regulus were known to have struck with his head, indicating a production of coin in the early days of the Triumvirate. 12 An example of the missing Clodius piece with head of Lepidus was found three years later, in the Cajazzo hoard. 13 Von Duhn concluded that Clodius must have been colleague to Mussidius and Regulus, accepting and confirming von Sallet's arrangement of the year before, which had grouped the three "and a fourth" together and dated them to 43 B.C. 14 Von Duhn postulated the fourth to have been Caius Vibius Varus. Friedländer added, that which von Duhn had not known, that the Cajazzo hoard had contained as well the only known specimen of a portrait of Lepidus struck by Varus. 15 The series were thereby complete: each moneyer struck for each triumvir.
Babelon followed von Duhn in accepting the four moneyers as one college, assigning them to 43–2 B.C. 16 Bahrfeldt had already drawn the connection, 17 and Mommsen had reverted to his original opinion. 18 But in England the effect of Count de Salis' historical and stylistic inquiries was to disregard the evidence of the Cajazzo find and the conclusions of the German scholars. Thus Grueber continued in the old opinion, separating the moneyers into two groups and dating them relatively late, Mussidius and Regulus to 39 B.C., Clodius and Varus to 38. 19 De Salis too had seen that the portrait of Lepidus was unknown on the coins of Clodius and Varus, concluding that their coinage must have been later than that of Mussidius and Regulus. Yet Grueber, writing thirty-three years after the discovery of the Cajazzo hoard, could say, "The addition of these gold coins to the series does not, however, affect the general classification." 20 He apparently justifies his division by his own chronological arrangement of the hoard material 21 —itself a dangerous pit-fall —as well as the style or fabric of the coins. "There is certainly a remarkable resemblance in the character of the types and the issues of the gold and silver coins of all four moneyers, but those of L. Mussidius Longus and L. Livineius Regulus have certain characteristics not found in the money of P. Clodius and C. Vibius Varus, and vice versa." 22
Cesano followed Grueber in his dating, arguing that the reverse type of the gold struck for Antony by Clodius—the figure of "Pantheus"—could only refer "alla sottomissione ed al dominio pacifico dell' Oriente per opera di Antonio stesso," a work which must date to 39 and 38, if not later. 23
In 1923, Bahrfeldt was able to refer to the coins of the four moneyers as "Die Münzen des durch die Funde von Cajazzo und Pieve-Quinta nunmehr ganz gesicherten Viermänner-Kollegiums." 24 Pink too assigned all four men to the college of 42 B.C. 25 Yet again, the second and most recent English catalogue disperses the moneyers so as to date Mussidius and Regulus to 42 B.C., Clodius to 41, and Varus still later to 39. 26 Sydenham's catalogue includes relatively little discussion of the reasons behind an attribution; no argument is presented to sustain this division and dating. Mattingly, in a note on Sydenham's arrangement, restates the other view: "C. Vibius Varus makes a fourth moneyer with Longus, Regulus, and Clodius in 43 to 42 B.C." 27 Finally, UlrichBansa has assigned to 42 B.C. a college composed of Longus, Regulus, P. Clodius Vestalis (sic—P. Clodius or C. Clodius Vestalis?), and L. Flaminius Chilo. 28
The point, it appears, remains to be proved one way or the other. It is evident that current opinion has tended toward two positions: 1) The four moneyers are to be dated together, as one college; 2) The college did not exist but the issues of the four are very alike. Even so with respect to the date of the moneyers: whether they formed a college or no, it is generally agreed that they struck either around 43/2 or about 39/8. Neither of the two familiar means of approach has succeeded in establishing the solution, although either might have suggested it. Grueber's reliance on non-numismatic evidence as a means of identifying, and thus dating, the moneyers breaks down here on his own admission. For three of the four officials are altogether unknown; for Regulus alone can he so much as hazard a guess. 29 On the other hand, Pink's arrangement of the four as one college is at least partly fallacious, as will be elaborated below, and stands ultimately only as long as his entire structure stands.
This study could marshal and examine the evidence, review the opinions of the past, and assert itself in support of one or the other. But no final solution would have been attained; the problem would still remain, to be attacked again and again. It would seem preferable, rather, to begin at the beginning, to attempt to approach the problem from an entirely new point of view, to invoke evidence never before considered, and to attempt to reach an answer without recourse to either the historical or the Aufbau method. Each of these will be invoked in its turn, but the method of this investigation is to be the study of the coins themselves. Considering them simply as metallic evidence of things past, we shall inquire whether they can reveal to us anything pertaining to the function of the moneyer or the pattern of the coinage which we do not already know.
The coins to be considered represent only a fraction of the total output of their respective moneyers. All struck silver of private types. 30 In addition, Clodius, Mussidius, and Regulus issued portrait denarii of Caesar (as had the moneyers of 44, and Gracchus and Vitulus in 43); Clodius, Regulus, and Varus struck denarii portraying Octavian; while Antony was similarly honored on silver of Clodius and Varus. The purpose of these issues needs not be discussed here; 31 the omission of Lepidus, less than a year after he had assumed the office of triumvir r.p.c., shows clearly enough the real significance of his position.
The private types of each moneyer were peculiarly his own. The portrait coinage must then be the closest connection between the officials. But the series are not complete; Mussidius apparently struck no portrait of Octavian or Antony in silver. And while an argument based generally on style can be drawn to some fineness it involves a subjective criticism which may not be accepted everywhere. The comparison of these portraits by style will be considered incidentally below, but the argument is not strong enough to carry off the victory in the principle struggle: did these moneyers, or any two or three of them, pertain to the same college?
The story of the coinage in gold is much the same. Each moneyer struck private types; indeed all but Regulus struck two. 32 Each moneyer also struck for the members of the Triumvirate, and in this case the evidence is complete: portraits of each triumvir are known for each series. Therefore these gold series, five in all, are to form the subject of this study, and they may properly be presented at this point. 33
|I. 38. 34 M.LEPIDVS.III.VIR. R.P.C||C.VEIBIVS / VAARVS 35|
|Head of Lepidus, l.||Two clasped hands.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
|39. M.ANTONIVS.III.VIR. R.P.C||as above.|
|Head of Antony, r.|
|40. C.CAESAR.III.VIR.R.P.C||as above.|
|Head of Octavian, r.|
The reverse type is clearly symbolic of Concordia: the reconciliation of the triumviri in particular, in general the renewed political stability of the state, more hoped for than actual. There may be here an attempt to recall the occurrence of the type on the denarii of Albinus and C. Vibius Pansa, and later on the quinarii of L. Aemilius Buca, under Caesar. Mussidius also struck denarii of the type of clasped hands and caduceus, with the head of Concordia on the obverse. 36
|II. 41. M.LEPIDVS.III.VIR.R.P.C||L.MVSSIDIVS / LONGVS|
|Head of Lepidus, l.||Cornucopia with fillet.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
|42. M.ANTONIVS.III.VIR.R.P.C||as above.|
|Head of Antony, r.|
|43. C.CAESAR.III.VIR.R.P.C||as above.|
|Head of Octavian, r.|
The cornucopia is symbolic of the stability and fecundity to be expected under the new régime. 37
|III. 44. M.LEPIDVS.III.VIR.R.P.C or M.LEPIDVS.III.VIR.R.P.C.||P.CLODIVS. M/F/IIII. VIR.A.P.F|
|Head of Lepidus, l.||Felicitas 38 standing r., holding sceptre in r. hand, cornucopia in l. At her feet, an object. 39|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
|45. M.ANTONIVS.III.VIR. R.P.C||P.CLODIVS.M.F / IIII. VIR. A.P.F|
|Head of Antony, r.||Male figure 40 standing l., winged and radiate, holding caduceus in l. hand, cornucopia in r., quiver and bow across back, r. foot resting on globe. At his feet, r., shield, l., an eagle upon a rectangular or rhomboid object.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
|46. C.CAESAR.III.VIR.R.P.C||P.CLODIVS / M.F.IIII. / VIR.A.P.F., or P.CLO-DIVS.M.F.IIII.VIR.A.P.F|
|Head of Octavian, r.||Venus sitting l. on cippus, holding dove in r. hand, embracing Cupid with l.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
The significance of the reverse types of this series will be understood only when the figure on the coin of Antony is finally explained. Perhaps we are to take together Felicitas- Genius/Aion-Venus (of whom Concordia is a derivative) 41 as symbolic of both the stability and the fecundity of the new age, the new era of hope.
|IV. 47. M.LEPIDVS.III.VIR.R.P.C||L.REGVLVS / IIII.VIR. A.P.F|
|Head of Lepidus, r.||The Vestal Virgin Aemilia 42 standing 1., holding simpulum in r. hand, sceptre in l.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
|48. M.ANTONIVS / III.VIR. R.P.C. or M.ANTONIVS.III.VIR.R.P.C or M.ANTONIVS.III.VIR.R.P.C.||L.REGVLVS / IIII.VIR. A.P.F|
|Head of Antony, r.||Hercules 43 seated facing on a rock, holding sceptre in r. hand, in l. sword (or parazonium?). At his l. leans a shield with Gorgon's head.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
|49. C.CAESAR / III.VIR.R.P.C or C.CAESAR / III.VIR.R.P.C.||L.REGVLVS / IIII.VIR. A.P.F|
|Head of Octavian, r.||Aeneas advancing r., bearing Anchises.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
The reverse types of Regulus associate each triumvir with his forebears. Only Antony's coin bears the image of the god, but Venus is implied on the Octavian piece, as is Mars on that of Lepidus. The conceit is not original—Sulla's association with Venus, Pompey's with Neptune, Caesar's with Venus all preceded—but the implications are clear: the triumviri claimed justly the power of office, for the very gods had conspired to endow Rome with their services. Not only was a new age at hand, symbolized by the reverse types of the other moneyers, but the Fortune of the city was to be assured by divinity as it were made flesh.
|V. 50. M.LEPIDVS.III.VIR.R.P.C||L.MVSSIDIVS.T.F.LON- GVS.IIII.VIR.A.P.F.|
|Head of Lepidus, l.||Mars standing r., holding spear in r. hand, parazonium in l., his l. foot resting on shield.|
|Dotted border.||Dotted border.|
|51. M.ANTONIVS.III.VIR.R.P.C||as above.|
|Head of Antony, r.|
|52. C.CAESAR.III.VIR.R.P.C||as above.|
|Head of Octavian, r.|
The reverse type is that of Mars disarmed, signaling the cessation of war. Perhaps the Roman actually accepted the symbol, in the hope that the proscriptions had ended once for all the divisions in the state. But one is reminded of the types of Hilaritas, Securitas, and Concordia, so common in the third century A.D., occuring most often precisely at those times when they meant the least.
The obverse legend is constant for the triumvir, the only varieties consisting in punctuation and spacing. All are read inward, and all begin at the lower left save for those of dies O.III and O.IV 44 which begin upper right. The reverse legends begin at various points and are all read across or inward, except for those of dies C.Aa, C.Ba, and R.Bo which are read outward. It is to be noted that the reverse legends vary: Varus never includes IIII. VIR. A.P.F, Clodius and Regulus always do, Mussidius does in the one series but not in the other. The position of the dies usually approximates ↑↑ or ↑↓ — rarely ↑← or ↑→ — but the dies were not fixed.
Granted that all the coins described above portray all the triumviri, one may yet inquire what justification can be offered for the joint consideration of several series of coin struck by moneyers who may very well not have been colleagues. The answer is that, in the first place, the obverse types, the portraits, are not common in series; a series of coin portraying each of the triumviri is known in only one other instance. We have a group of aurei, certainly not struck at Rome and attributed by Grueber and Sydenham to Gaul, which falls into two parts. 45 The first consists of those coins bearing the portrait of Antony on one face and Lepidus on the other, the second, of Antony on one face and Octavian on the other. The aurei are quite rare—no denarii of these types are known—and no other series can be found which portrays all the triumviri. Returning to our gold, it seems inherently unlikely that several moneyers at random, over a period of years, should have hit on the idea of striking these types in series. They much more reasonably must have struck together.
Nor need we rely on a conjectural, or even a stylistic comparison, for a closer connection than type or style has been discovered between the series. The terminus from which we depart was suggested thirty years ago by Bahrfeldt. In assembling and arranging the material for us to use, Bahrfeldt discovered a coincidence of cardinal importance: these moneyers, in their gold coinage for the triumviri, in some cases made use of the same obverse portrait dies. "Die für Lepidus von Varus und Longus geprägten Goldstücke n. 38, 41 u. a. sind von stempelgleicher Hs., also müssen sie in derselben Münzstätte und auch zu derselben Zeit geschlagen worden sein!" 46 "Für jeden der drei Machthaber wurde ge- sondert geprägt, dabei wenden Vibius und Mussidius für alle drei dieselben Rs.-Darstellungen an, während Clodius und Livineius wechseln. Die vielfach vorkommenden Stempel- gleichheiten beweisen, daß alle diese Münzen gleichzeitig und in einer und derselben Münzstätte, nämlich in Rom, aus- geprägt worden sind." 47 Sydenham apparently knew nothing of this die coincidence, for it would seem to invalidate his dating altogether. Yet one might argue, and it would be impossible at this point to disprove, that a number of dies might have been left over at the mint, to be used in some later year by another moneyer. That is, although it be very likely that the sharing of one die by two moneyers indicates that they struck in the same college, yet the coincidence is of itself no certain proof. Some further evidence would be welcomed.
The nomen Mussidius will be used throughout, so that in the designation of the dies there can be no confusion between those of L(ongus) and those portraying L(epidus).
Th. Mommsen, Geschichte des Römischen Münzwesens, Berlin, 1860; p. 653.
For P. Accoleius and L. Ariscolus as two distinct moneyers see Alföldi, review of Pink, p. 388.
"Römische Denarschätze. IV: Der Denarschatz von Vigatto." In Zeitschrift für Numismatik, II (1875) 66–8.
The point is put clearly by Borghesi (Œuvres Complètes, Paris, 1862–4; II, p. 77): "Mussidio unì quel tipo alla testa di ciascuno dei triumviri [he refers to the reverse type of Mars standing—see below], mentre da Clodio fu preterito Lepido, Golziana essendo la medaglia non mai veduta da alcuno, che dicevasi portare il suo ritratto. E la ragione procederà dal tempo, nel quale da ognuno di loro fu amministrata la zecca: onde sul principio del triumvirato, quando la potenza di Lepido era eguale a quella dei suoi colleghi, osservasi onorato del pari dai monetieri Livineio e Mussidio; ma scaduto dopo di riputazione, e quasi relegato nell' Africa, fu poi negletto tanto dal nostro Clodio quanto da Vibio Varo." Yet von Sallet was not disturbed ("Die Münzen Caesars mit seinem Bildniss." In ZfN, IV  137): "Wir keine Münze des Lepidus vom Monetar Clodius besitzen, während die beiden andern genannten Quattuorvirn des Jahres 711, Mussidius Longus und Livineius Regulus für alle drei Triumvirn, Antonius, Octavian, Lepidus Goldstücke prägten; indeß ist bei der enormen Seltenheit aller dieser Goldstücke und besonders der Goldmünzen des Lepidus immer noch möglich, daß es auch einige wenige Stücke vom Monetar Clodius mit Lepidus' Bild gab und daß wir sie vielleicht noch finden. Es ist eine bekannte Sache, daß bisher unbekannte Goldstücke jener Zeit auch jetzt noch zu Tage kommen: ich erinnere nur an das Berliner Unicum mit dem Kopfe des Antyllus, das im zweiten Band dieser Zeitschrift publiciert worden ist."
F. von Duhn, "Münzfund bei Cajazzo." In ZfN V (1878) 236.
J. Friedländer, "Zum Münzfund von Cajazzo." In ZfN V (1878) 242.
E. Babelon, Description Historique et Chronologique des Monnaies de la République Romaine, Paris, 1885; p. 167. "M. W. Caland place leurs fonctions en 712 (42 av. J.-C.): ils sont en effet restés en charge pendant cette année, mais ils ont commencé à battre monnaie dès l'année précédente." Cf. W. Caland, De Nummis M. Antonii III viri, Leyden 1883; ρρ. 29–39.
Max Bahrfeldt, "Der Denarschatz von Pieve-Quinta." In ZfN X (1883) 18.
Th. Mommsen, "Der Denar des Q. Salvidienus und die Schätze von Peccioli und Metz." In ZfN XI (1884) 73–4, 79.
H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum, London, 1910; I, pp. 573–88 (hereafter "Grueber"). De Salis assigned no more than two active moneyers to each of the years 43 through 37.
I, P. 555.
I, p. cxiv; III, pp. 28–9.
I, p. 583.
Lorenzina Cesano, "Contributo allo studio delle monete antiche dimezzate," in Rivista Italiana di Numismatica XXVIII (1915) 22–4.
Die Römische Goldmünzenprägung während der Republik und unter Augustus , Haale, 1923; p. 50 (hereafter "Bahrfeldt").
H. Mattingly, in Sydenham, p. 223.
O. Ulrich-Bansa, "Introduzione alla Numismatica Romana (parte II)," Rivista Italiana di Numismatica LVI (1954) 60. Sydenham too assigns Chilo to 42 B.C. (p. 180).
I, p. 573.: "Of the moneyer Lucius Mussidus Longus, the son of T. Mussidius Longus, we know nothing but what we learn from his coins."
P. 583. "Of Publius Clodius, son of Marcus Clodius, we have no certain information beyond that he was one of a quattuorvirate of the mint."
P. 587. "Caius Vibius Varus is also only known from his coins."
P. 578–9. "Lucius Livineius Regulus, like his colleague L. Mussidius Longus, is not known to us from history, and our information about him is derived only from his coins, which tell us that he was the son of Lucius Livineius Regulus, the praetor, who, with his brother Marcus, was a friend of Cicero, and who appears to have served under Caesar in the African war, B.C. 46 (Hirtius, Bell. Afr., 89)." Münzer, in PW XXV, cols. 808–9, takes the moneyer himself to have been the Livineius Regulus mentioned in Hirtius. So too Broughton, II, p. 581: "Praefect Hadrumentum 46." But there is no evidence whatever for either identification.
For the coins in general of the four moneyers, see Grueber, I, pp. 573–90.
On the problem of coin portraiture immediately following the death of Caesar, see A. Alföldi, "Porträtkunst und Politik in 43 v. Chr." In Netherlands Y ear-Book for History of Art V (1954) 160–3.
Bahrfeldt, nos. 30–7. The first type of Clodius, no. 30, with head of Apollo, is no longer to be thought unique. At least two other examples are known: 1. R. Ratto sale (Morcom-Hands), Lucerne, Feb. 8, 1928; no. 1016; 2. Glendining sale (V. J. E. Ryan), London, Feb. 20, 1951; no. 1562 = Ciani sale, Paris, May 6–7, 1955; no. 248.
A catalogue of the known specimens of each type will be found on p. 63.
To simplify reference, the numbers assigned by Bahrfeldt have been retained throughout, and the types are generally referred to in the order which he used.
This reverse type appears to have been entirely unknown, with any of the three portraits, before the discovery of the Cajazzo hoard in 1878. Although von Duhn and Friedländer (opp. citt.) list but three examples of number 40, it is probable that the fourth stems from that find as well. Considering the rarity of all the five series here to be discussed, an extraordinary number and variety occurred in the Cajazzo hoard. Von Duhn and Friedländer certify: no. 38 (1 example), 39 (3), 40 (3), 41 (1), 42 (1), 43 (3). 44 (1). 45 (1). 47 (1), 48 (2), 49 (1), 52 (1).
Albinus and Pansa: Grueber, I, nos. 3964–5, 3987–8; Buca: I, no. 4162; Mussidius: I, no. 4236.
For the cornucopia as symbol of the Fortune of Octavian, see A. Blanchet, "Monnaies de Lugdunum (Copia)." In Revue Numismatique series 5 X (1947/8) 121–2.
"Concordia"—Grueber, I, p. 584; "Concordia (?)"—Sydenham, p. 184; "Weibliche Gestalt"—Bahrfeldt, p. 57. Felicitas seems not to have been previously suggested. The figure does not carry the caduceus as we might expect, but the omission is not unparalleled: cf., e.g., the sesterce of Titus in Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, London, 1923—, II, nos. 156–160. Conversely, the caduceus is sometimes associated with Concordia: cf. the denarius of Mussidius, n. 36 supra. Felicitas has an especial meaning for Lepidus, for Caesar removed the remains of the Curia Hostilia, burnt in 52 B.C., and proposed a temple to Felicitas on the site of the old senate-house. But his death supervened, and the temple was completed in 44 B.C. by Lepidus (Dio xliv.5.2).
"Owl?"—Grueber, loc. cit.; "Owl"—Sydenham; "Undeutlicher Gegenstand. (Tropaeon?)"—Bahrfeldt. The object remains obscure; Dr. Laurence Richardson suggests to me that it might be a wineskin lying on its side, complementing the cornucopia.
"Genius"—Grueber, I, p. 582; and Sydenham, p. 184; "Pantheus"— Bahrfeldt, p. 58. The significance of the iconography has been the subject of some discussion, in part stemming from the attribution of the piece to 38 B.C. or later, a date which permits an interpretation involving Antony's role in Eastern affairs. For the literature up to 1923 see Bahrfeldt, p. 58, to whose list one might add Cavedoni, review of Cohen's Médailies Consulaires, in RN new series X (1857) 349; and Borghesi, II, pp. 72, 77–81. Alföldi, "Der neue Weltherrscher der IV. Ekloge Vergils," in Hermes LXV (1930) 369–84, interprets the figure as Aion, that is, the saeculum frugiferum.
L. Preller, Römische Mythologie, Berlin, 1883 (3rd edition, by H. Jordan), II, p. 260. That these three deities were associated on one festival day appears to be more than a coincidence, given the coin types. CIL I2, p. 331 reproduces the calendar for October 9th: VII ID. OCT. – C. Genio public(o), faustae Felicitati, Vener [i) victr(ici) in Capitol(io). (The phrase in Capitolio need not mean "on the Capitol," nor need it apply here to anyone other than Venus. Mommsen interprets the inscription correctly, loc. cit.; but cf. S. B. Platner, Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, London, 1929 (revised, T. Ashby), pp. 206, 207, 247, 555.) Felicitas was appropriate to Lepidus as we have seen, Venus to Octavian. (The Venus of the coin is Venus Genetrix; but Genetrix and Victrix were often not distinguished: cf. Preller, op. cit., I, 443; II, 356–7.) Yet if there be here a reference to the Triumvirate, what could be the significance of the ninth of October? The date of the meeting near Bononia is not known, but it appears to have fallen at the end of the month or early in November.
The identification was fixed by Borghesi, I, pp. 329–32. Cf. Plutarch, Romulus, II. 3.
"Mars"—Bahrfeldt, p. 59. But the lion's skin can be seen hanging down in the space between the rock and Hercules' legs. Grueber (I, p. 578) and Sydenham (p. 182) prefer Anton as the identification, which can hardly be attacked although it seems unnecessarily subtle. Although the sceptre and shield seem strange for Heracles, there appear to be no representations of Anton to establish his iconography. Cf. Plutarch, Antony, iv. 1, xxxvi. 4, lx. 3.
For the scheme of die identification, see below note 48.
Grueber, II, nos. 46–7; Sydenham nos. 1161–2.
Once the study of die linkage is undertaken as a method of chronological arrangement, one must pass beyond the stated coincidences. To ascertain not only which coins shared a given die, but the order in which they struck, would be a long step toward the solution of the problem. Although no one of the moneyers would be dated to any given year, their relative order might be established. For this reason an exacting study of the dies was undertaken. All the coins attributed in the Catalogue to New York, London, Rome, the Vatican, and Naples were studied in the original specimen. Casts were obtained of those in Glasgow, the Hague, Paris, St. Florian, Vienna, and Budapest, as well as nos. 41.6, 44.1 and .2, 47.11 and .12, and 48.7 and .14. The remaining specimens, about one quarter, were studied through photographs. Each coin was examined in the most minute detail. The progression of faults and breaks of each die was charted to reveal the chronological sequence of the coins struck from that die. The study was not always successful: in some cases the coins could be separated only into groups, not classified individually. In a few cases, particularly with respect to reverse dies, no separation was possible. But usually some distinctions could be drawn.
When each die had been individually considered, the reverse dies were studied together. Something of the mint organization might be revealed by their sequence. Clearly, reverse dies could not have been traded about between the moneyers, for they were the signature dies; they could not indicate ties between the officials. But they might indicate how each official worked. Several dies offer us no information, either in not exhibiting progressive damage—e.g. M.Ec 48 —or in being paired with only one die, itself not found elsewhere—e.g. R.Bo—or in occurring on but a single example—e.g. A.VII. These dies will not be discussed below, save for the reverse dies of Varus, exempli gratia.
The reverse dies of C. Vibius Varus are of no assistance. The coins are too rare at present—we have only eight examples of this series for the triumviri together—and the die arrangement is indecisive. Die V.A was employed with one portrait die of Lepidus and one of Octavian. In either combination the breaks of V.A are the same, when the area in which they occur is not off the flan altogether. Die V.B occurs only with one portrait die of Antony. Only one stage in the life of the die can be assumed for the three examples which we possess.
The reverse dies of L. Mussidius Longus with cornucopia as type are more revealing. The known examples of reverse M.Ac show clearly that obverse O.II was struck with this reverse before obverse A.II. Moreover, die M.Bc began, insofar as our examples can indicate, with obverse A.III as mate, followed by O.II. The damage suffered by the reverse under the hammer marks the progression clearly. The latest pieces are struck with L.IV and, again, A.III. Similarly in the case of reverse die M.Cc, the occurrences of obverses L.V and O.I intertwine in time.
The second series of Mussidius, nos. 50–2, with Mars as the reverse type, offers a similar variation in the pairing of obverse dies. The gold struck to both M.Am and M.Bm may present examples of the random selection of obverse dies, as did those of M.Bc and M.Cc above. Until it is possible to divide the coins into smaller groups their exact sequence cannot be established. Certainly the pieces struck from die M.Bm appear to have been struck first to the portrait of Lepidus, then to that of Antony, and finally to the head of Octavian. A further point of importance is to be noted: the sequence indicates that obverse portrait A.I, in some cases at least, was used before A.II, an element to be considered below in establishing the overall sequence of obverse dies. The evidence of reverse die M.Am exactly contradicts that of M.Bm; the sequence of obverse portraits begins with Octavian, continues with Antony, and ends with Lepidus.
The reverse dies of Publius Clodius add little to the study up to this point. None of them occurs with the portrait of more than one triumvir, for the reverse type was cut with reference to the obverse die. Even within these limits only one sequence can be demonstrated. Die C.Al, of which we know only two impressions, was used with, at least, two Lepidus portrait dies. In this case die L.I was employed before L.II. The two reverse dies cut for Antony, as well as the two for Octavian, occur each with only one obverse die. 49
Finally, the reverse dies of L. Livineius Regulus. Again, only one of the seven dies is known in combination with more than one portrait die. 50 Reverse R.Ca occurs with three, Antony portraits A.IV, A.V, and A.VI. Clearly A.VI was the latest to be paired with R.Ca, in two cases at least. Whether the point can be made in the third case, for no. 48.5, is not clear, nor is the relative dating of dies A.IV and A.V yet established.
Thus far only the production of the individual moneyer has been presented; no connections between the officials have been established. These connections will present themselves with the consideration of the portrait dies of the triumviri. The five series of gold consumed in all, as far as we know, seven portrait dies of Lepidus, seven of Antony, and four of Octavian. Of the total of eighteen, five were used by more than one moneyer:
|L.IV:||38.1 (Varus)—41.1, .2, .7 (Mussidius/cornucopia)|
|A.I:||45.1–.5, .7–9 (Clodius) —51.1, .3–7, .9 (Mussidius/Mars)|
|A.II:||39.1–.3 (Varus)—42.4, .7, .9 (Mussidius/cornucopia)—51.10, .11 (Mussidius/Mars)|
|O.I:||43.2, .3, .8 (Mussidius/cornucopia)—46.1, .2 (Clodius)|
|O.II:||40.1–.4 (Varus)—43.1, .4–.7, .9–.10 (Mussidius/cornucopia)—52.1–7, .10–.13 (Mussidius/Mars).|
Bahrfeldt himself compared a part of the coins which he listed, so that he was able to account for about half of the above links.
Portrait die L.III is found only in the Mussidius series with Mars reverse. Four examples are known, with which appear three reverse dies. The order of the moneyer's signature dies may here be traced from the obverse damage: M.Am was the first to be used, M.Cm the second, and M.Bm the last. If this order can be shown to be consistent, this evidence may in its turn determine the order of other portraits struck to one or more of these reverses.
The fourth portrait dies of Lepidus occurs with but two reverse dies, V.A and M.Bc. The correct order of each moneyer's signature dies will be considered below; that is not to be found here. There is no doubt, however, that in this case at any rate Varus used the portrait die before Mussidius. After Varus had struck the one example which we possess, the die broke between the forehead of Lepidus and the legend, and that break is to be seen on the three examples struck by Mussidius. Immediately Grueber's chronology is wrong, for he had dated Varus to the year after Mussidius' term of office. Similarly, Sydenham's dating, Mussidius to 42, Varus to 39, cannot be accepted.
Die L.V occurs with two Mussidius reverses of the cornucopia type, M.Cc and M.Ec. The obverse damage makes clear that the two dies were used in that order. The coins struck from L.VI are relatively common, but the reverse die is the same in all cases, R.Al.
The portrait dies of Antony are equally helpful. Die A.I occurs in two series, those of Clodius and Mussidius with Mars as reverse type. Two reverse dies of Clodius were paired to the portrait. Unfortunately, only the British Museum example of the first pairing, A.I and C.Aa, can easily be read; the only other piece known is illustrated in Riccio's catalogue, whose electrotype impressions are too crude for more than simple recognition. The one legible example was clearly struck before the remaining Antony pieces produced by Clodius, which bear reverse die C.Ba. The latter form a group which cannot easily be broken down into smaller segments.
All the examples of A.I with a reverse die of Clodius preceded those with the signature of Mussidius. On the coins which we have the line of demarcation is very clear: on all the examples signed by Clodius the area enclosed by the upper parts of the letters NIV, on the obverse die, is totally corrupt. All save no. 45.7 have a clean break from the upper curve of the final C to the dotted edge. In the later series the first massive break has been repaired. Some traces remain, but two new breaks are now to be seen between TO and ON. The area about the end of the inscription has also been reworked to remove the break observed there: note that on the nos. 45 the dotted edge contains four dots from immediately above the vertical of P to above the upper tip of C. When this area was reworked the dotted edge was cut anew, so that five dots appear in the place of four on all the examples struck by Mussidius from this die.
Antony's portrait A.I was paired by Mussidius with three reverse dies, M.Am, M.Bm, and M.Cm. Again, as in the case of the reverses of L.III, M.Am is earlier than M.Bm. The position of M.Cm is not clear, for the die was apparently used concurrently with M.Bm.
The above evidence demonstrates that a second of Grueber's datings must be rejected, for Mussidius is assigned to 39 B.C. in his catalogue, Clodius to 38. In accordance with the destruction of die A.I, Clodius must have struck his series of gold honoring the triumviri r.p.c. before the production of the Mussidius series with Mars reverse. So too Sydenham's arrangement is in error; it is not possible to agree that Mussidius struck in 42, Clodius in 41.
Die A.II is found in three of the five series, the Mussidius series with Mars reverse, the Varus coinage, and the Mussidius series with cornucopia reverse. Only one reverse die is found in combination with A.II from each series. The evidence confirms that which is presented above under L.IV, that Varus can no longer be dated later than Mussidius.
Die A.III is found only in the Mussidius series with cornucopia reverse. It appears with three reverse dies, M.Bc, M.Dc, and M.Ec, in that order. The latest examples, nos. 42.2 and .6, are again struck from a pairing of A.III and M.Bc. This is one of only two cases in the five series of the recurrence of a reverse die; the other lies in the combination of A.I and M.Bm.
Obverse die A.IV is known in eight impressions, six of them with Regulus' reverse R.Ba. The latest of the eight, no. 48.9, bears reverse R.Ca, thus establishing the relation of those two signature dies. The reverse of no. 48.14, die R.Aa, is otherwise unknown. It clearly preceded some of the examples of R.Ba, and probably should be taken as the earliest reverse of its type.
Die A.V is found on only one coin; from its reverse die, R.Ca, it was determined above that it preceded at least two examples of A.VI. Portrait die A.VI occurs only with reverse R.Ca, the consideration of which demonstrated that this obverse must have followed A.IV.
Of the four portrait dies of Octavian, O.I is shared by two moneyers, Clodius and Mussidius in the cornucopia series. Only two coins are known of Clodius' production for Octavian, each with its distinctive reverse die. The reverse dies, of course, occur nowhere else, and the condition of the obverse in each case is not sufficiently distinctive to allow an opinion as to the priority of the striking. Both coins fall before the pieces struck by Mussidius from this obverse. In this group only one pairing occurs, with reverse M.Cc.
Die O.II is found in three series, first with the Mussidius reverse bearing Mars as the type, latterly with a die of Varus and both Mussidius types. This large second group can be no further reduced—die O.II was unusually sturdy—but the overall pattern follows that set above in the consideration of portrait A.II: some of the coins struck to Mussidius' Mars type are earlier than both the Varus pieces and the Mussidius cornucopia specimens. Whether or not one wishes to date all the Mussidius Mars reverses before the remaining types, that arrangement obtains in at least a number of cases, and we have found no evidence to contradict it.
With respect to the reverse dies paired with obverse O.II, the three earliest specimens occur with M.Am, while the coins of this series in the second group are all found with M.Bm. The evidence of L.III and A.I above, that this was the order of consumption of the two reverse dies, is here confirmed. The Varus reverse is the same in all cases, V.A. The usage of the cornucopia dies of Mussidius, M.Ac and M.Bc, cannot be disentangled at this point.
The reader will wish to consult the two tables below, pp.45 and 54, for the linkage and the chronology of each obverse and reverse die. It must be observed that the die designations are, for the moment, completely arbitrary. The obverse dies are identified by the initial of the triumvir and a Roman numeral: e.g., the four portraits of Octavian are given as O.I through O.IV. The reverse dies are identified by the initial of the moneyer —V(arus), M(ussidius), C(lodius), and R(egulus)—and a capital letter. Thus, Varus' two reverse dies are V.A and V.B. Since two series were struck by Mussidius, a third, minuscule letter distinguishes between them: M.Cc is the third die of Mussidius in the cornucopia series, M.Am, the first in the series with Mars reverse. Both Clodius and Regulus used especial reverses to suit the individual triumvir: R.Bo designates Regulus' second die for Octavian, R.Ca, his third die for Antony, C.Al, Clodius' first die for Lepidus. The designations "first die" or "third die" are arbitrary and have as yet no bearing on the chronological arrangement of the dies.
The paucity of this series of Clodius' gold is the more to be regretted in that the reverses cut for Octavian are of the finest workmanship. Die C.Ao is an example of the best in Roman die engraving of the period. The technique is impeccable: the relief is high, the figures finely proportioned. And, more important, the concept is impeccable. The type is designed to adorn a circular field, it is not cut at random. The curve of Cupid's wing and Venus' head exactly parallels the border of dots. The artist has emphasized the primary importance of the harmony of type, legend and border by breaking the legend at an unexpected point, the better to fit it into the whole. (Cf. the reverse of the Concordia-Cloacina denarius of Mussidius [Grueber, I, nos. 4242-7]: the type is overpowered by the legend. Cf. also reverse die R.Bo: the legend is artifically forced about the figures so as to deny the circular nature of the field.) Unfortunately, the single coin known from die C.Ao is badly battered and holed as well.
Actually, reverse R.A1 is found not only with all the examples of Lepidus' portrait L.VI, but with the single impression of L.VII (no. 47bis) which I omit from this discussion. See the note to that number in the Catalogue.
The material in the foregoing chapter having been assembled, it now becomes possible to render an assessment of it, in the hope that some conclusions of fact can be reached which will surpass the suppositions of earlier years. Let us begin with the sequence of the signature dies of each moneyer as established by the corruption of the obverse dies.
Varus' two reverse dies are never paired with the same portrait, so that no sequence can be established. But three lines can be traced in the Mussidius series with cornucopia reverse. First, obverse die A.III established that reverse M.Bc was followed first by M.Dc, then by M.Ec. M.Bc appears a second time after M.Ec. Second, reverse M.Ec was also preceded at some point by die M.Cc, as obverse L.V proves. M.Cc, however, must follow M.Bc, for the latter is not found paired with L.V as are both M.Cc and M.Ec. Third, reverse M.Ac is one of the earliest of the series, for it is paired to O.II even as is M.Bc. There the order of the two reverse dies cannot be determined. But since M.Bc precedes M.Dc and M.Ec, then M.Ac must precede them as well. But M.Bc, M.Dc, and M.Ec are all struck to obverse A.III, while M.Ac was paired with A.II. Therefore M.Ac precedes the lot. The final stemma of the cornucopia dies then should be: 1. M.Ac; 2. M.Bc; 3. M.Cc—M.Dc; 4. M.Ec; 5. M.Ac bis.
This is not to imply that M.Cc and M.Dc were necessarily used concurrently. That the dies tend to fall into a one by one sequence opposes such a conclusion. But it is hardly safe to attempt to reduce the stemma any further. This sequence, established by the examination of the portraits, is confirmed by the style of the reverse types. For the two earliest cornucopiae are delicate and graceful, while the lower tips curve back to the left and terminate no farther to the right than the axial line of the whole. The cornucopiae of M.Cc and M.Ec have deviated from this standard: the body is rather larger than need be, and the whole is thrown off balance in that the tip curves much too far to the right. The dumpy and graceless cornucopia of M.Dc is even worse. 51
One conclusion to be drawn from this evidence is, that the striking was not organized from the obverse portrait. That is, we might have assumed that any authority claimed by a moneyer was but nominal. We know that the aerarium must have been primary in the thoughts of the triumviri—even thus Caesar had seized it as one of his first acts on entering Rome 52 —and that the power of coinage now depended directly from them, rather than from the senate and the magistrates. One indication of such authority would have been the production of coin according to the portrait die; as long as Antony's image was to be seen, any moneyer could have signed his name on the reverse. A group of Antony gold would be struck with whatever reverse dies, in any order or at random, followed by an issue of Lepidus coins or Octavian pieces.
But the evidence of the cornucopia dies is that the case was just the opposite. A chronological arrangement of the coins struck from dies M.Ac, M.Bc, and M.Cc has been erected. But the corresponding obverse dies seem almost to have been used at random. Why would a worker strike with O.I, for example, put it aside in favor of L.V, and then take it up a second time? That such a sequence was followed is the testimony of reverse die M.Cc. Perhaps the worker drew an obverse die at random as he began each day's work. Or perhaps there was consciously an attempt to balance the number of coins struck with the portrait of each triumvir. But in any case, the reverse die, the moneyer's signature die, was the limiting element, not the portrait. Ultimately monetary control must have ascended to the triumviri themselves; no order of coinage would change that. But in the mint itself, in the process of striking, the moneyer must still have filled a position of some responsibility, for the coins of each are struck first to his signature. That the position of the moneyer did not change under Caesar 53 or under the triumviri ought to be sufficient to show that the responsibilities of the office were not initiative.
The reverse dies of Clodius vary in type with the triumvir, so that a stemma ought to be established for each. But only one reverse is known to have been struck to the portrait of Lepidus, while the two dies cut for Octavian cannot be ordered chronologically by the damage done to obverse O.I. In the case of the dies cut for Antony the results are clearer. The breaks in A.I show that C.Aa was earlier than C.Ba; had either been paired with any other obverse the evidence might have been more profitable.
The reverse dies of Regulus, as those of Clodius, were designed for the individual triumvir, so that again their significance is limited. Only one reverse is known for the Lepidus gold, which itself knows but one portrait, save for the curious bronze, no. 47 bis. The reverse of that piece is in no con- dition to allow a comparison with the reverses of the gold coins. Two reverse dies occur for the Octavian coinage; again, each is struck with its own obverse which is not found elsewhere. The Antony coinage offers more variety. Portrait die A.IV indicates that three of the four reverses fall into the stemma: 1. R.Aa; 2. R.Ba; 3. R.Ca. The fourth reverse die, R.Da, occurs only once, on no. 48.10, with an obverse impression which is itself unique.
Finally, the reverse dies of Mussidius with Mars as type fall into a clear pattern. Obverse L.III establishes the order M.Am, M.Cm, M.Bm. The precedence of M.Am over M.Bm is confirmed by both portrait dies A.I and O.II. But in the former case the position of M.Cm is not secondary but tertiary. From the evidence of the obverse breaks it appears that the stemma must have been: 1. M.Am; 2. M.Bm; 3. M.Cm; 4. M.Bm bis.
When the reverse dies have been ordered, to the extent that is possible, the sequence of the portrait dies becomes considerably clearer. Since Mussidius' cornucopia dies M.Ac and M.Bc are the earliest of that series, it must follow that Octavian portrait O.II, paired with each of the two reverses, preceded in use—again, in this series—obverse O.I, which occurs only with M.Cc. Similarly, portrait L.IV, struck only with M.Bc, was utilized before die L.V, which was paired with reverses M.Cc and M.Ec. Finally, since M.Ac preceded M.Dc and M.Ec, the portraits of Antony to which they were struck must share that order: A.II is earlier than A.III.
The two coins of Lepidus struck by Clodius bear two differing portrait dies. The damage done to the reverse die, C.Al, establishes that obverse L.I preceded L.II. The coins of Clodius produced for Antony are all struck to the same obverse die, as are those of Octavian.
The only group of Regulus' coinage which permits examination are the pieces struck for Antony. Both reverses R.Aa and R.Ba are paired with obverse die A.IV, so that it preceded the other two found with R.Ca, dies A.V and A.VI. Although all three comprise the earlier group of gold under R.Ca, the later coins were struck from A.VI. Now one would expect that a portrait die would not recur. That die was in higher relief than the reverse, the more difficult to cut, and probably the lower and better protected of the two dies when in striking position —there are more of the reverse dies, for one thing. Each obverse surely was used until nothing more could be done with it: the niggardlyness of the moneyer or the indolence of the engraver is illustrated by the repair of obverse A.I, as well as the lamentable state of the dies on the latest examples struck from L.V and, again, A.I. If these considerations be correct, the first group of coins listed under R.Ca should be broken up so that A.IV precedes, A.VI follows, and the stemma is: 1. A.IV; 2. A.V; 3. A.VI.
Finally, the Mars series of Mussidius establishes that Antony's portrait die A.I preceded A.II. To be sure, M.Bm occurs twice in the stemma, but its own breaks indicate that A.II was the later die in use.
It has been shown that when each moneyer produced his gold, no effort was made to strike to the portraits in any order. Thus, reverse die M.Bc was paired with obverse A.III, then with O.II, and finally with L.IV and A.III again. The only limitation seems to have been that the same three portrait dies were employed as long as each was usable. It should, then, be possible to trace the order of each moneyer's production in the college or colleges by the obverse dies, whether their dies were thrown together in a jumble, or whether each official had completed his coinage before the next began. Again the evidence is not always complete, for not every coin could be classified individually, but it is never contradictory.
The chronology of obverse dies determined above by reverse breaks is exactly confirmed as one traces the dies passing among the moneyers. All three portraits used by Varus—let us begin with Bahrfeldt's order—were used by Mussidius, two of them in both of his series. Bahrfeldt himself noted the one break which proved no. 38.1 to have been struck before nos. 41.1–.2, .7, break no. 3 under Lepidus portrait L.IV below. 54 Thus some, at any rate, of the cornucopia series struck for Lepidus were proved later than the unicum of Varus. The other examples of no. 41 were struck from obverse L.V. But it has been shown above that the stemma of Mussidius' cornucopia dies proves L.IV to have been used before L.V. Therefore all the Mussidius cornucopia coins struck for Lepidus are later than the Varus piece.
Even this step does not prove the independence of Mussidius' coinage; one must consider the coinage by Varus and Mussidius for Antony and Octavian. In fact, obverse A.II tells exactly the same tale: all three examples produced by Varus are earlier than the pieces from the same die in the cornucopia series of Mussidius. Again, the other coins of Antony in this series were struck with portrait die A.III, which by virtue of the stemma of cornucopia dies established above must have been in use after A.II. Portrait O.II cannot help us. Most of the coins struck from this obverse cannot be distinguished inter se; those of Varus are at any rate not shown to be later than the Mussidius pieces of cornucopia reverse.
Two of Varus' obverse dies, A.II and O.II, are also to be found in the Mussidius series with Mars' reverse. Portrait O.II is here a bit more helpful, for in spite of the difficulty in distributing the coins it is clear that these Mussidius pieces were produced earlier than the Varus coins from the same die. The portrait of Antony, A.II, makes the same point as definitively.
Thus the results of the treatment of portraits LIV, A.II, and O.II are rather unexpected. Mussidius' cornucopia series as a whole followed the coins struck by Varus, as Bahrfeldt noted for one case. But Bahrfeldt implies, by the manner in which his material is arranged, that the Mars series of Mussidius was later still. The contrary is true: not only do the latter pieces precede the cornucopia series, they precede as well the coinage of Varus.
Clodius struck with four obverse portraits. Two of them are shared, A.I with Mussidius in the Mars series, O.I with the same moneyer in the cornucopia series. In either case the Clodius pieces are found to be the earlier. But since the Mars series is the earliest of the three discussed above, the Clodius coinage must precede them all. Portrait die O.I is noted to be the only obverse die which reappears after its substitution by another, for between its two appearances occurs obverse O.II under Varus and in both series of Mussidius.
The stemma of obverse dies as employed by these three moneyers is then established, and the order in which the four series were produced is absolutely certain:
Having arrived at this point, one may be concerned to note that Regulus is omitted from the stemma. A chronology of obverse dies ought to be constructed for his coins even as for those of the other three moneyers. The two Lepidus portraits cannot be separated in time, for that which appears only on the bronze is paired to a reverse impression too badly preserved for study. Of the four Antony portraits, three were ordered above in the consideration of reverse R.Ca. The fourth, A.VII, is known in but one example, paired with a reverse itself unique, so that it must fall outside the scheme. Finally, each of the two portraits of Octavian is struck to a single reverse, which permits no argument of priority. The stemma of the obverse dies used by Regulus is, then:
|plus VII at some point.|
The curious fact is that Regulus shares no portrait die with any of the other three moneyers. Apparently Bahrfeldt missed the point, for he implies that the interchange of dies was general. 55 Actually there is not a single case of die correspondence. One may argue that the material is weak—as assuredly it is—or that the dichotomy is merely coincidental. But the gap is even wider: save only for one case even Regulus' die engravers differ.
The first two of the three portraits of Antony used by Clodius, Mussidius, and Varus are both clearly the work of one hand and indeed are almost identical. The third die chronologically, A.III, bears rather a better portrait. The relief is higher, the eye is more nearly in profile than before, the forward edge of the nose is cut rather than simply traced. The portrait of A.III seems to be by the same hand as those of A.I and A.II, but the concept is more plastic, the hand more confident. The portrait of A.III should then be compared with that of O.II: both heads are spherical, while the treatment of hair, eye, and ear indicate the same engraver.
The five Lepidus dies in the stemma can be broken down by style into three groups. Those used by Clodius, L.I and L.II, were cut by one hand. The head is rather long for its height, the treatment of the hair at the back of the head is linear, the neck and chin are separated by a deep cut. Dies L.III and L.IV are the work of a second artist. The head is rather square, the treatment of the hair is plastic, the chin and neck are molded together. Die L.III is the more successful in the profile view of the eye. Finally, the portrait of obverse die L.V is small, in high relief, representing a round head with a deep Scopaic wrinkle in the forehead. The three hands can equally be distinguished by the cut of the lower edge of the bust: the first engraver cuts two small indentations upward but overall the line is almost straight; the second engraver emphasizes the second indentation so that the lower right point of the bust curves downward; the third abandons the indentations for a single dramatic swoop upward.
None of the above dies—that is, all of the stemma save O.I —was cut by any engraver who cut a portrait for Regulus. Three artists worked under Regulus in this series. The first cut the two Lepidus, the two Octavian, and the best of the four Antony portraits, A.IV. The sensitive portraits are by far the finest of all the obverse dies. One may object that the head of Lepidus is much too young for a man approaching his fiftieth year. But the heads are cut with delicacy and feeling, the hair is handled with care to preserve its plasticity, the eye is always correctly cut for the profile. All are in comparatively high relief. No better portrait of Lepidus exists; that of Octavian was surpassed only after Actium when the concept of his portrait had changed entirely; 56 that of Antony is challenged only by the head of the unique aureus of Antony and Octavia in the Berlin collection. 57
Two other hands are seen in the portraits of Antony produced for Regulus. Die A.VI is rather well cut technically, but the quality of the portrait is less than that of A.IV. The back of the head is somewhat misshapen, and the bust below is out of balance; for the right point is so lightly cut as to fade away, while the left is distinctly presented. Still, the lower part of the bust is reminiscent in style of the fine portraits mentioned above: perhaps we have here a product of the same engraver on an off-day. The third (or second?) hand cut two monstrous portraits of Antony, dies A.V and A.VII. The head is small and round, the eye too large and incorrectly cut for the profile view, the nose large and awkward. The relief of the whole is low.
A complete dichotomy between Regulus' dies and those of the other three moneyers is averted at just one point. For although Regulus never strikes with a die used by any of the other moneyers, the artist who created his fine portraits also cut obverse die O.I. The latter is more finely cut and more realistic in effect than its companion die, O.II; indeed the portraits of O.I and O.IV are almost identical. Thus, although the stemma of obverse dies excludes the coins of Regulus, the identification of a common engraver, as well as the historical considerations presented below, permit us to continue to inquire whether Regulus might not have been the colleague of Clodius, Mussidius, and Varus.
Prof. Alföldi has already attested the deterioration in portrait engraving which confirms his chronology of the coins of 44 B.C. (Studien über Caesars Monarchie, Lund, 1953).
Dio xli.17.1–2, inter alia. In the days of private armies, the role of commander was too heavy a burden financially for any private citizen. Thus Octavian, having occupied Rome in 43, had to distribute 2500 denarii per man to his eight legions, a total of some four hundred million sesterces. Each soldier received the equivalent of 805 grammes of gold, a considerable amount of money even today. This was probably the occasion of the gold coinage of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus and Q. Voconius Vitulus (see Alföldi, "Porträtkunst," pp. 164–6).
Caesar, we are told, made use of peculiares servos in the mint (Suetonius, Divus Julius lxxvi.3) in addition to having enlarged the college from three to four (cf. ibid, xli.i). Undoubtedly the servi were to keep an eye on the moneyers, but legally they had no significance.
"Stempelgleich: … n. 41. u. 2 und Exemplar Montagu, sowie hiermit die Hs. vom Goldstücke des C. Veibius Vaarus oben n. 38. Eine auf letzterem vorhandene kleine Stempelverletzung erscheint auf den Mussidius- Goldstücken vergrößert, also sind diese später geprägt, als das des Vibius!" (p. 56).
See above, p. 13.
The later head is a young, idealized portrait. Cf. e.g., Bahrfeldt nos. 104 to 9. The problem of the change in Augustan portraiture is treated by Josef Liegle, "Die Münzprägung Octavians nach dem Siege von Actium und die augusteische Kunst," in Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts LVI (1941) 91–119.
Bahrfeldt no. 88.
It has been indicated above that the fact that a die link exists between two moneyers does not limit them to the same college. 58 Even when the investigation of the die faults is successful, only a relative chronology is the result. To prove that moneyer A used die X before moneyer B still does not date the two men to the same year. A may have struck a day or a decade before B. Ultimately, the only way to prove the point is somehow to show that A struck both before and after B. They must have coined in some manner so as to overlap. Only then are they assuredly and beyond any question colleagues.
The evidence now is clear that each of the series of gold under discussion is self-contained, each was struck individually. But fortunately for us, Mussidius rested from his labors and permitted Varus to coin in the interval between the two series with Mars and with the cornucopia as reverse types. Varus and Mussidius, then, are proved to have been colleagues. Neither Grueber nor Sydenham can be followed in this question any longer. The coins themselves have solved the problem once for all.
Clodius is not yet assuredly a colleague of the other two. His series of gold preceded theirs; that is proved. Theoretically, however, he might have coined a year or two earlier. The answer to this cavil is the consideration of the date of the college to which Varus and Mussidius pertained.
The terminus post quem for the production of the gold under discussion is obviously the date of the Lex Titia, November 27, 43 B.C. Before that date the Triumvirate had no legal existence, so that the obverse legend would be impossible. The terminus ante quem is the battle of Naulochus and the defeat of Sextus Pompey in September, 36. For after the victory Lepidus committed himself to the delusion that his second-rate status as primate of Africa, fobbed off on him after Philippi and at Brundisium in 40, could be ameliorated only by open defiance of Octavian. But Caesar's heir invoked once again the dramatic flair which recalled his father, Lepidus cowered and begged forgiveness, and the Triumvirate became for all practical purposes a Duumvirate.
But the latest date for our gold can be set back still further. The Triumvirate had lasted, legally, for five years, 42 through 38 B.C. When the term of office had expired no one dared challenge in law the position which the triumviri had taken by force. But legalistics prevailed, and all unnecessarily the Triumvirate was renewed, at Tarentum in 37 B.C., as of the first of January of that year. 59 After this date each triumvir was theoretically triumvir iter r.p.c., a nicety observed by Octavian in his titulary on the coins. 60 The omission of the iteration dates the moneyers' gold back to 38 B.C. at the latest, the date forwarded by Grueber as the year of office of Varus and Clodius.
The gold of our four moneyers was struck somewhere between 43 and 38 B.C., inclusive; reason induces us to inquire why the gold was struck at all. Each of the moneyers struck gold with a type or types of his own choosing. The Varus aureus with head of Apollo 61 on the obverse and standing Venus on the reverse is the commonest of all Republican gold, save only that struck for Caesar by Hirtius. This duality, the private types and the portrait coinage of the triumviri, makes clear that it was not incumbent on the officials simply to laud their city's leaders. Even when the triumviri were to be honored the moneyers' enthusiasm was not boundless.
The fact that these gold series are unique in conception, the fact that Lepidus never again appears on a coin struck at Rome, 62 the fact that Antony and Octavian never again appear at Rome on the same coin or joined in series, 63 the fact that the moneyers manage to produce gold of types having no direct reference to the triumviri —all lead one to conclude that some special impetus must have motivated the production of these rich and varied aurei. That impetus is most obviously, of course, the very inauguration of the Triumvirate. The newest office of the state, nearest to king, is celebrated by the king's own metal—the types are not found in silver. The triumviral portrait gold of Clodius, Mussidius, Varus, and Regulus is to be understood as commemorative of a new beginning for Rome.
Bahrfeldt had assumed as much, although the manner in which he dated the pieces cannot be accepted. "Die Münzen … scheiden sich ohne weiteres in zwei durch ihr Gepräge wesentlich von einander abweichenden Gruppen. Die Gepräge der ersten folgen in ihrer Verschiedenartigkeit ganz dem hergebrachten republikanischen Brauche, während auf denen der zweiten Gruppe die Porträts und Namen der drei Machthaber M. Lepidus, M. Antonius und C. Caesar mit ihrem Titel III.VIR.R.P.C erscheinen. Daraus folgt unzweifelhaft, daß der Abschluß der Triumvirats in die Amtstätigkeit des Kollegiums fiel und daß die Münzen der ersten Gruppe vor dem 27/11 711/43 geprägt worden sind, die der zweiten aber danach. … Die Gepräge der zweiten Gruppe sind sehr zahlreich. … Ich glaube daher annehmen zu können, daB alle diese Münzen sich nicht auf den kurzen Zeitraum vom 27/11 711/43 bis zum Ende des Jahres zu- sammendrängen lassen, sondern daß ihre Prägung auch noch in das Jahr 712/42 hinübergreift, die Amtstätigkeit dieses Kollegiums also von mehr als einjähriger Dauer gewesen sein wird…" 64
Bahrfeldt assumes a difficulty where none exists. For he believes that the private types must have been struck before the triumviral portraits. The assumption implies that had the Triumvirate been created on the first of January, instead of the twenty-seventh of November of 43, that the moneyers of that year would have expended all their energy in producing public types while abjuring the private. But the suggestion is gratuitous; P. Accoleius, Petillius Capitolinus, and Marcellinus 65 all struck after the formation of the Triumvirate with no public types at all. 66 Bahrfeldt would also have to explain why, if the moneyers were so zealous in portraying the triumviri on their gold, they were so haphazard in their silver. 67
Second, Bahrfeldt skirts danger by suggesting hopefully that the college of 43 might have continued in office in 42. 68 For less than thirty-five days remained in the year after the promulgation of the Lex Titia. A great series of dies had to be cut—we know eighteen obverse and twenty-two reverse to have been used—and presumably golden flans had to be manufactured. Yet again the difficulty is removed by denying it. We know of no reason why the office might have been prorogued, and if Varus and Mussidius struck only in 42 they would have had a full year for the production of all the coins which they wished to strike. 69
Nor is it then difficult to fill the college of 43. The key is the discovery that the denarius of L. Servius Rufus bears not the portrait of the tribune, Servius Sulpicius Rufus, 70 but that of Marcus Junius Brutus the tyrranicide. 71 Obviously political support of this nature would have been meaningful in the course of only two years, 44 and 43 B.C. The college of 44 has already been established: M. Mettius, L. Aemilius Buca, P. Sepullius Macer, and C. Cossutius Maridianus. 72 The portrait of Brutus and the coinage of Servius Rufus in general, therefore, can be dated only to 43. His colleagues are assigned on the basis of style. Sydenham dated M. Arrius Secondus and C. Numonius Vaala to that year, 73 and undoubtedly C. Clodius is to be included as the fourth moneyer. 74 The coins celebrating the formation of the second Triumvirate were struck after the beginning of the following year, when there was sufficient time for the preparation of dies and flans. There is then no point to, and indeed no possibility of, predating Clodius to Varus and Mussidius, and the three can be taken as members of one and the same college, striking in 42 B.C. 75
Regulus, finally, can be dated no earlier than 42, while there is every reason, as stated above, not to separate him from the other three to be assigned to a later year. The problem rather is, when in 42 did he strike with relation to his colleagues. The lack of any die connection with the coins of Clodius, Mussidius, and Varus would indicate that those three all struck before or after Regulus. His best dies, as we have seen, were cut by the engraver who produced die O.I, the earliest portrait of Octavian of the stemma above. But there are indications that the same engraver cut additional dies for the moneyers. The portraits of Antony and Octavian on the denarii of Varus are very close to those under discussion. 76 The head is larger, although the relief is no larger, nor is the detail as fine; but the dies were being cut for a series of silver, not for commemorative gold, and presumably a number were produced more quickly. The entire concept of the portraits is the same, the hair of the heads of Octavian at any rate is cut always in the same manner on both gold and silver, Antony's wrinkled brow and the eyes and ears of both are identical.
Thus, that the engraver of Regulus' fine dies cut obverse O.I as well cannot date the issue of Regulus' gold. There is, however, a second indication of the possibility that Regulus' coins were the earliest of these series. It has been suggested that the moneyers of any given college were not equal in rank, but that one held the primacy. 77 Thus the denarius of L. Flaminius Chilo with obverse legend III.VIR.PRI.FL, 78 that is, quattuorvir primus flavit. 79 Grueber understood by primus that Chilo "acted as the superintendent-in-chief of the issue for the year." 80 But the word is to be taken as well in a temporal sense: Chilo, the superintendent to be sure, was the first of his college to strike coin. 81 Now of the moneyers of 42 Regulus alone lays claim to any office beyond that of triumvir a.p.f. 82 He struck in great number a series of denarii, bearing on the obverse the head of his father, L. Livineius Regulus, praetor in an unknown year, 83 and reading L.REGVLVS.PR, REGVLVS.PR, or anepigraphic. One of the reverse types paired with these obverses pictures a curule chair with a fascis at either side and bears the legend REGVLVS.F / PRAEF.VR. 84 The relation of a praefect of the city to the coinage is not clear; we know there to have been men of that office earlier in change of the production of gold. 85
The enlargement of the college of moneyers from three to four under Caesar was one part of a considerable reorganization of the state 86 One may well wonder why the efficient conduct of an office is projected in increasing, rather than decreasing, the number of responsible officials. The answer probably is to be, in this case at any rate, that the fourth man was Caesar's man, a compliment to the peculiares servi. Again the interest in the aerarium noted previously, and the use of the praefect in the financial service of both Caesar and Augustus, bear the point out. There was to be a sure understanding and a tight control of those offices which created, as it were, one of the means of power. When Caesar was dead, the fourth moneyer continued to strike into the first years of the Triumvirate; but when Augustus' control was unchallenged and no especial overseer necessary, the moneyers reappeared, in 20–19 B.C., as a board of three. 87 The indication by Regulus, then, that he was PRAEF.VR may not be as innocent as Grueber's interpretation of it: that he was praefectus urbi feriarum Latinarum causa, a relatively minor office. 88 Regulus, I suggest, was praefect of the city whose duties included the control of the coinage. Not until a consul was absent from the city did a praefect come into his full administrative powers; Lepidus, if not Plancus, seems to have remained in the city for the course of the year 42 B.C. 89 Until such an occasion arose, Regulus had another matter to attend: he became one of the moneyers.
The legend PRAEF.VR occurs on only one part of Regulus' silver coinage. This, however, does not contradict the argument, but rather strengthens it: as far as the striking of coin was concerned, Regulus was a moneyer. Even on the PRAEF.VR silver we do not meet, as we might have expected, an indication of a special issue. 90 He probably issued first the PRAEF.VR denarii, signifying his position, and then the gold and silver which appear to be the output of an ordinary moneyer. It has been commonly assumed that the PRAEF.VR silver must be later than the rest, on the grounds that once the title had been assumed it would never have been put by. 91 Thus arose Grueber's interpretation of the title as a temporary honor which supervened in the course of the year. Yet the PRAEF.VR coin is, aside from the legend, an ordinary issue, celebrating nothing save the fact that Regulus was PRAEF.VR. But if we conceive that Regulus was not a moneyer who happened to become praefect, but the reverse—a praefect assigned to the mint— the problem is settled at once. The PRAEF.VR denarii were in a sense commemorative, an announcement of the position held by Regulus. Once the point was made he continued to strike simply as one of four moneyers. Compare the case of Flaminius Chilo who proclaimed that he primus flavit. Yet only one of his two series bears that inscription; had we only his portrait coins of Caesar we would never have known of the distinction.
The relative position of Regulus and Mussidius has already been considered by Alföldi in an examination of the style of the portrait of Caesar. 92 Here too Mussidius is seen to be the later, for the portrait is both smaller and cruder than that of the coins of Regulus. But the Caesar portrait of Regulus is in turn smaller than that of Flaminius Chilo, who struck during the last half of 43 B.C. Thus Regulus serves as a link between the college of 43 B.C. and his colleagues of 42.
Accepting Regulus as the fourth moneyer, one returns to Pink to consider why he divides the coinage of 42 B.C. into "regular" and "special" issues. 93 The denarius of Regulus with PRAEF.VR suffers the fate of being classified "special," without any reason having been admitted to justify the distinction. But more disturbing, three of our five series of gold are also "special": those of Regulus and Clodius, and the one Mussidius series with Mars reverse. Now the speciality of these issues is supposed to consist in the origin of the metal. The bullion was normally aurum privatum, purchased on the open market. Aurum publicum (i.e., from the aerarium Saturni) was to be struck only in an emergency, when the metal was not otherwise available. 94 But the suggestion that the moneyer himself supplied the metal used in the mint (aurum privatum) is backed by no evidence, although it has been asserted before Pink. 95 Similarly, the contrast between "public" and "private" bullion is not supported by any Roman source. Actually the only basis for the division between these five gold series is the title in the reverse legend, IIII.VIR.A.P.F. And the title remains just a title: these men are quattuorviri (what else could they be as moneyers?) who strike public gold (what other gold could they strike?). 96
Alfoldi is undoubtedly correct in rejecting the whole concept. 97 Every issue was special, insofar as it depended from a senatus consultum or a vote of the people. All the moneyers bore the title whether or not they engraved it on their coins. It was, after all, just that much more to be cut on die after die. If Mussidius can honor the triumviri with a complete series which bears the title, and contrive to produce a second series which always omits it; if Varus can refuse to use it while Clodius and Regulus include it; and if the series bearing the title precede those omitting it: then we must reexamine the criteria for the division between "special" and "ordinary" issues.
To conclude, the college of 42 B.C. can now be more clearly conceived. Clodius, Varus, and Mussidius are proved to have been colleagues. Regulus was undoubtedly the fourth, as one would conclude from the type of the gold, the style of the portrait engraving, and the brief historical considerations above presented. The order of the production of the gold series is again clear in the case of the three moneyers, while the investigation of Regulus' status in the college makes it probable that he was primus. We cannot construct the order of production of all the series of gold and silver of 42 B.C.; that will never be possible. But the gold struck in honor of the second Triumvirate is now arranged: Regulus, Clodius, Mussidius/Mars, Varus, Mussidius/cornucopia.
A good deal of the hybrid coinage of the Empire was produced from dies which ought to have been cancelled but which were retained in working condition at the mint.
For the date of the second term of office see the discussion in Bahr- feldt, pp. 102–3, 106; and T. Rice Holmes, Architect of the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1928; I, pp. 231–245.
E.g., Bahrfeldt no. 103: IMP.CAESAR.DIVI.F.III.VIR.ITER.R.P.C. The coins of Antony do not bear the iteration.
Not "Venus"—Bahrfeldt, p. 53. Cf. the Apollo head on the gold of Clodius, Bahrfeldt no. 30.
Only two other series are known which bear his portrait: the presumably Gallic gold (see above p. 12); and an issue of gold and silver attributed to Africa (Grueber, II, nos. 29–31) or Gaul (Sydenham no. 1323), with the portrait of Lepidus on one face, that of Octavian on the other. The provenance of the coins is uncertain but they must be provincial. (One might add the bronze coin of Ephesus, bearing on the obverse the portraits of all three triumviri, on the reverse an image of the Ephesian Diana.)
Again, the Gallic gold discussed above bears their portraits. Otherwise the two appear together, after the formation of the Triumvirate, on: 1. aurei struck in Gaul (Grueber, II, no. 59); 2. aurei and denarii struck in the East by Barbatius, Nerva, and Gellius (II, nos. 98–110); 3. aurei and denarii similar to the last but signed by no official (II, nos. 120–7); the tressis in the bronze coinage called of "the fleet praefects," Bibulus, Atratinus, and Capito, struck in Greece or the East (II, pp. 511 and 515, and no. 154) (pace Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas, Cambridge, 1946, pp. 43ff., who would attribute them to Tarentum). One might include 5. aurei with obverse legend ANTONIVS.IMP, reverse legend CAESAR.IMP, dated to 39 by Grueber (II, no. 90) and Sydenham (no. 1327). The legend opposes so late a date, and Bahrfeldt (p. 47) argues cogently for 43 on the basis of the composition of the Borzano hoard.
But see Alföldi reviewing Pink, p. 388, who would attribute the denarius of Marcellinus to Sicily rather than Rome.
Accoleius: Grueber, I, nos. 4211–4; Capitolinus: 1, 4217–25; Marceilinus: I, 4206–8.
See above, p. 6. An explanation has been attempted by Gabrici, "La Monetazione di Augusto," in Augustus, Studi in Occasione del Bimillenario Augusteo, Rome, 1938, p. 392 n. 1. He is forced to date the office of Mussidius, Clodius, and Regulus originally in 44, continuing through 43, and protruding into 42 B.C. The fourth moneyer is at first Sepullius Macer, his place being filled in about February of 43 by Varus. Only thus can he justify the striking of denarii picturing Caesar, gold and silver of Republican types, silver without the portrait of Lepidus, and finally the gold under discussion here. The dangers involved in accepting this scheme are enormous; it suffices to remark that the coins of eight moneyers now attributed to 43 B.C. by Alföldi (v. n. 74 infra) will be dated later (they cannot be dated earlier) only with great difficulty. Nor can we yet understand why denarii of Antony and Octavian, but not of Lepidus, were struck after the formation of the triumvirate. Both Bahrfeldt and Gabrici are confuted by the obvious solution: that each moneyer struck the types which pleased him and which made the proper concessions to political reality.
A suggestion which one meets strangely often: e.g., Mattingly in Sydenham, p. 223, the latest example. We know that consular elections were held in 43 B.C., albeit late in the year and under some duress from Octavian (Dio xlvi.45.3). And Dio xlvii.18.3 certainly implies that not only the new consuls, but a whole new board of magistrates took office on the first of January, 42.
Cf. Pink, pp. 61–2.
So Grueber, I, no. 4205 and pp. 566–567.
Sydenham no. 1082; Alföldi, "Porträtkunst," pp. 160–3. Cf. the portrait of Brutus on the aureus struck in the East, Bahrfeldt no. 65.
For the latest examinations of the college of 44, see Alföldi, Studien; C. M. Kraay, "Caesar's Quattuorviri of 44 B.C.: the Arrangement of their Issues," in Numismatic Chronicle series 6 XIV (1954) 18–31; and UlrichBansa, op. cit., pp. 52–60.
So too Mattingly in Sydenham, p. 223. Both the composition of the college and its date had been conceived by Mommsen, Geschichte, p. 652; Grueber had assigned one of the four to each of the years 43–40 B.C. Alföldi now suggests that two colleges struck in 43, the second taking office in August and being composed of L. Flaminius Chilo, Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, Q. Voconius Vitulus, and Petillius Capitolinus (?) ("Porträtkunst," pp. 152–6).
This dating will render void the opinion which sees in the "Pantheus" of the Clodius/Antony aureus a reference to the victories in the East of 39 and 38. Certainly the other reverses of this series, the Felicitas of the coin of Lepidus, the Venus and Cupid of Octavian, have no especial significance in the context of the victories of either triumvir. Alföldi's interpretation of the Antony reverse as Aion makes the earlier explanation unnecessary. Similarly, Pais' ingenious but unsound explication of the types of Mussidius depends from accepting a date no earlier than 41 for that moneyer, and thus is to be rejected ("I Nummi di L. Mussidius Longus ed il loro Significato per la Storia del Triumvirato romano," in Rendiconti della R. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei series 5 XXXIII  15–24). Finally, the hoard evidence must in some cases be reconsidered: e.g., the Pieve-Quinta hoard, which is dated by Bahrfeldt to 42 ("Der Denar- schatz," p. 18), by Grueber to 38–7 (I, p. 560), and by Sydenham to 39 (p. lvii). The date depends precisely from the determination of the year in which Varus struck.
plate 9, nos. A and B respectively, to be compared with portraits A.IV, O.I, and O.IV.
Pink, pp. 39–40, 61.
Grueber, I, nos. 4198–200.
Mommsen, Geschichte, p. 652.
I, p. 565.
PRI.FL, then, is only a different way of expressing what III.VIR had meant on the coins earlier. All the moneyers were triumviri, or later quattuorviri, but only the head of the college had used the title on his coins. (Cf. Alföldi, "Studien zur Zeitfolge der Münzprägung der römischen Republik," in Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau XXXVI  28–30, and Studien, p. 5 n. 1.) Similarly, L. Aemilius Buca is the one moneyer of 44 B.C. to entitle himself IIII.VIR (Grueber, I, no. 4162); both the style and type (the dream of Sulla) of his earliest denarii prove them to have been the earliest of the year. When the portrait of Caesar was taken up, a reorganization of the mint apparently took place, for in these series Mettius struck first and alone. (Cf. Alföldi, Studien, pp. 5–6, 84–6).
Pink, p. 39: "Our previous research has shown that it is only the leading moneyer who bears the title of office." But in our college all but Varus strike gold with the inscription IIII.VIR.A.P.F, so that Regulus' priority would have to be indicated otherwise. The link between the old and the new forms of identifying the primus of the mint will be found in the second college of 43 B.C. Chilo's IIII.VIR.PRI.FL is balanced by Ti. Sempronius Gracchus' IIII.VIR on his aurei and denarii (Grueber, I, nos. 4313–5; Bahrfeldt no. 102).
Broughton, II, p. 464.
Grueber, I, nos. 4261–2.
A considerable number of aurei are known which were struck by L.PLANC.PR (or PRAEF).VRB during the third dictatorship of Caesar, 46–45 B.C. (Bahrfeldt nos. 20–2). Whether or not the coins were produced at the mint of Rome, or at some provisional establishment, the elected moneyers had nothing to do with overseeing them. Apparently the praefectus urbi who coined served as the precedent for the creating of the office of praefectus aerarii Saturni by Augustus in 28 as a substitute for the quaestors who had filled that post (Dio LIII.2.1; Tacitus, Annals, XIII. 28–9).
Suetonius Julius 41.1, 76.3. Cf. T. Rice Holmes, The Roman Republic, Oxford, 1923; III, pp. 318-25; and W. E. Heitland, The Roman Republic, Cambridge, 1923; III, pp. 340–7, 356–62.
Franco Panvini-Rosati, "Le Emissioni in Oro e Argento dei Tresviri monetales di Augusto," in Archeologia Classica III (1951) 81; Pink, pp. 44–48.
I, pp. 579-80. The one reverse type which might refer to the games pictures two men fighting three wild beasts (Grueber, I, nos. 4271–3), but never bears the legend which would indicate that Regulus was praefectus urbi in charge of the festivities. The coin reads simply, L.REGVLVS. Alföldi is surely right in regarding Regulus as praefect for the grain supply ("Studien," pp. 23–4); cf. the denarius with modius and ears of grain as reverse type (Grueber, I, nos. 4269–70). Here too the legend is simply L.LIVINEIVS / REGVLVS, so that the denarius with curule chair and two fasces, and the legend REGVLVS.F / PRAEF.VR, must have been meant to be commemorative.
CIL X 6087 states that Plancus was involved in a distribution of land around Beneventum. Broughton assumed the deed to date to 42: "[Plancus] began to distribute land to soldiers at Beneventum [in 42 B.C.]" (p. 357). But the inscription is Augustan and the distribution is not dated; it could as well have been 41. Pink suggests (pp. 40-1) that Lepidus was appointed praefectus urbi not as secondary to Plancus or Lepidus, but against Octavian's departure from Rome. But Octavian was out of Rome in 42, and it is curious that the praefect is nowhere referred to in any manner whatever, outside the mint.
E.g., the AD.FRV.EMV.EX.S.C of the denarius of L. Calpurnius Piso and Q. Servilius Caepio (Grueber, I, nos. 1125–8). But Pink labels the Regulus piece "special," without indicating his reason (p. 43).
E.g., Babelon, II, p. 142. It cannot be proved that the type is either earlier or later than the other denarii of Regulus. For that reverse is paired with an obverse whose legend, L.REGVLVS / PR, is not found elsewhere.
"Porträtkunst," p. 155 and pl. IV.
P. 56–8. See too Pink's "Special Coinages under the Triumviri Mondtales," in Essays in Roman Coinage Presented to Harold Mattingly, Oxford, 1956, pp. 59–62.
E.g. H. Mattingly, Roman Coins, London, 1928, pp. 28–9.
Although the title appears only on the gold, it may refer to the entire coinage, to be translated "… for the striking of public money"—argento p.f.
Review of Pink, pp. 389–91.
L.I Large bust l. Point of nose between PI. R above back of head.
|44.1||C.Al||1. Break from lower lip to base of E.|
L.II Large bust l. Point of nose at I.
|44.2||C.Al||1. Two breaks inter alia minora: from upper bar of E outward through dotted border; from dotted border to tip of r. staff of V to upper curve of S.|
L.III Large bust l. Point of nose between PI. R at back of head. Verticals of I of LEPIDVS and P of R.P.C are not parallel.
|50.1||M.Am||1. Break from tip of r. leg of M toward intersection of chin and throat.|
|2. Break from lower forehead upward toward point of V.|
|50.3||M.Cm||1. as above but more pronounced.|
|2. as above but more pronounced.|
|50.2||M.Bm||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. Break through dotted border between EP inward to middle arm of E.|
|4. Break from point of curve of D to point of V.|
|5. Break from tip of vertical of R of R.P.C inward diagonally to back of head.|
|50.4||M.Bm||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. as above but now beyond middle bar of E.|
|4. as above.|
|5. as above.|
|6. Break from center of r. staff of V horizontally through center of S.|
L.IV Large bust l. Point of nose between PI. R at back of head. Verticals of6 I of LEPIDVS and P of R.P.C parallel.
|38.1||V.A||1. Tongue-like break below the bust, rising to the r., is regular for all examples.|
|2. Bulge in center of l. leg of M.|
|41.7||M.Bc||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. Two breaks: from point of I of LEPIDVS, under D, to lower forehead; from lower curve of D toward but not touching upper forehead.|
|41.1||M.Bc||1. as above.|
|2. Bulge is now a thick break to the dotted edge.|
|3. as above.|
|41.2||M.Bc||1. as above.|
|2. [Off flan]|
|3. as above.|
L.V. Small bust l. Point of nose between EP.
|41.5||M.Cc||1. A number of hairline breaks are common to all examples: staff of L to base of E; curve of P to top and to center of I; lower curve of D through center of l. staff of V, to tip of r. staff of V; from lower back of head diagonally l. behind neck.|
|41.3||M.Cc||1. as above.|
|2. Break from top l. leg of M to dotted border.|
|41.6||M.Cc||1. as above.|
|2. as above but now including break from center point of M inward.|
|3. Break from hair in front to lower curve of D.|
|4. Break from tip of nose to tip of lowest bar of E.|
|41.4||M.Ec||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. as above.|
|4. as above.|
|5. Break from lips toward base of L.|
L.VI Small bust r. Point of chin between PC.
|47.1||R.Al||1. Break from base of I of LEPIDVS to back of head.|
|47.4||R.Al||1. as above but now a large triangular fault.|
|47.10||R.Al||1. Break is gone, for the die has been reworked: e.g., where earlier the head had risen sharply from the field, now the outline merges with the plane. So too the bridge of the nose has disappeared, which cannot be attributed to wear.|
|2. Break inward from dot after VIR.|
L.VII Small bust r. Point of chin at P. [Known only from this bronze.]
A.I 98 Large bust r. M.AN straight.
|45.7||C.Aa||1. Area from center point of I of|
|ANTONIVS to the letter at either side and above to the dotted edge entirely corrupt.|
|45.1||C.Ba||1. as above but now including the upper area of N.|
|2. Break from midpoint of curve of C, past the curve of P, to dotted edge.|
|51.3||M.Am||1. has now been repaired. Some traces remain, but the most important break is now 3.|
|2. is also repaired and the edge recut.|
|3. Considerable corruption between TO and ON, not extending 1. beyond the vertical of T.|
|51.1||M.Am||3. as above but extending l. beyond the vertical of T.|
|51.7||M.Bm||3. as above.|
|4. Break from top of A to dotted edge.|
|51.4||M.Bm||3. as above.|
|51.9||M.Cm||4. as above.|
|5. Break from lower tip of C to bust.|
|51.5||M.Bm||3. as above.|
|51.6||4. as above.|
|5. as above.|
|6. Break toward M from intersection of back of hair and neck.|
A.II Large bust r. First N of ANTONIVS wider above than below: the verticals are not parallel.
|51.10||M.Bm||1. Corruption at r. base of first N of ANTONIVS regular for all examples.|
|39.2||V.B||1. as above.|
|2. Corruption begins on upper l. side of P, hairline break toward dotted edge.|
|39.1||V.B||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. Dot on top of curve of R of R.P.C and break beginning toward edge.|
|42.4||M.Ac||1. as above.|
|2. as above but break now extends through dotted edge, and involves the dot between R.P.|
|3. as above.|
A.III 99 Large bust r. M.AN curved.
|42.5||M.Dc||1. Two hairline breaks: horizontally between AN, diagonally between NT.|
|42.1||M.Ec||1. as above.|
|42.11||M.Dc||2. Hairline break from top of R of R.P.C to dotted edge.|
|42.2||M.Bc||1. as above.|
|42.6||2. as above.|
|3. Corruption at upper l. of O almost touching r. tip of bar of T.|
A.IV Fine bust r.
|48.7||R.Ba||1. Dot at back of head between TO.|
|48.3||R.Ba||1. as above.|
|2. Small cut under nose.|
|48.1||R.Ba||1. as above.|
|48.2||2. as above but larger.|
|48.9||R.Ca||1. as above.|
|2. as above but cut connected by break to tip of nose.|
A.V Small bust r. Point of nose between R of VIR and R of R.P.C.
|48.12||R.Ca||1. Break from back of head, above lower limit of hair.|
A.VI Gross bust r.
|48.8||R.Ca||1. Two breaks: diagonally upward from lower tip of I of ANTONIVS through V to top of S and beyond toward dotted edge; from l. end of bar of T upward to dotted edge.|
|48.11||R.Ca||1. as above.|
|48.13||2. Break to M from intersection of back of neck and hair.|
|–––48.5 100||R.Ca||1. as above.|
|2. [This area obscured by the Este counterstamp.]|
A.VII Small bust r. Point of nose at R of VIR.
|48.10||R.Da||1. Break from dotted edge to l. side of A.|
O.I Large bust r. CAES curved.
|46.1||C.Ao||1. Break from dotted edge outward above first C.|
|43.3||M.Cc||1. as above but now extending into letter C.|
|2. Break from dotted edge outward above staff of E.|
|3. Two breaks from back of hair, from hair line and just above hair line.|
|43.2||M.Cc||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. as above.|
|4. Break from back of head to r. leg of first A.|
O.II 101 Large bust r. CAES straight.
|40.1||V.A||1. Short break toward edge from each of the two dots separating R.P.C.|
O.III Finebustr. Largeletters. Point of noseat E, of chin at A.
|49.2||R.Bo||1. Considerable corruption over VIR. Top of break from I to R slopes down to r.|
|49.4||R.Bo||1. as above.|
|2. Break from bottom r. tip of bust to dotted edge.|
|49.1||R.Bo||1. as above but top of break from I to R now almost horizontal.|
|2. as above.|
O.IV Fine bust r. Small letters. Point of nose between ES, of chin at R.
|49.3||R.Ao||1. Break from upper tip of C of R.P.C toward top of head.|
No. 45.9 has been omitted. For these purposes it is illegible.
No. 42.12 has been omitted as illegible for these purposes.
The dash indicates that the coin cannot be placed exactly in the sequence.
It has not been possible to determine from the reproductions the condition of the die on nos. 52.2, .4, .12, and .13.
V.A Upper thumb under I.
|38.1||L.IV||1. Two breaks: outward and upward diagonally from dotted edge to l. of first V of VAA- RVS; bulge inward from dot next above.|
|–––40.3||O.II||1. [Off flan]|
V.B Upper thumb under B.
M.Ac Graceful cornucopia, tip l. IVS far from type.
|43.1||O.II||1. All examples share: break from lower end of staff of first L; break connecting tops of second S and I; break connecting upper tip of S of LONGVS with stem of grape-cluster.|
|42.4||A.II||1. as above.|
|42.7||2. Two breaks; between l. fillet|
|and cornucopia one mm. below their juncture; from dotted edge inward between second VS of MVSSIDIVS.|
M.Bc 102 Graceful cornucopia, tip l. IVS almost touches type.
|42.2||A.III||1. Tiny horizontal break connects midpoint of r. leg of V and l. curve of S of LONGVS.|
|43.7||O.II||1. as above but break passes through S.|
|2. Hairline break connects upper and lower portions of l. fillet, in field between fillet and cornucopia.|
|43.9||O.II||1. as above but break passes into lower center of V.|
|2. as above.|
|3. Break begins inward from dotted edge toward S of LONGVS, one mm. above and paralleling break 1.|
|43.5||O.II||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. as above.|
|4. Break connects lower r. leg of V and lower r. curve of S, below and parallel to 1.|
|41.1||L.IV||1. as above but break reaches edge.|
|42.3||A.III||2. as above.|
|3. as above but break reaches tip of S.|
|4. as above.|
M.Cc Gross cornucopia, tip r. Edge of cornucopia falls below IVS of MVSSIDIVS and S of LONGVS.
|41.3||L.V||1. Two breaks: from base of second I to edge of cornucopia; from round fruit at r. top of cornucopia diagonally r. to dotted edge.|
|41.6||L.V||1. as above.|
|2. Break connects ends of three leaves protruding from end of cornucopia.|
|43.2||O.I||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. Break connects upper tip of S of LONGVS to round fruit at r. top of cornucopia.|
M.Dc Gross cornucopia, tip r. Edge of cornucopia falls below S of MVSSIDIVS and above S of LONGVS.
M.Ec Gross cornucopia, tip r. Edge of cornucopia falls below IVS of MVSSIDIVS and above S of LONGVS.
|44.1||L.I||1. Break from r. side of cornucopia under hand toward fourth I of IIII.|
|44.2||L.II||1. as above.|
|2. Break inward from dot between S.M.|
C.Aa Caduceus points to P. Bow protrudes between IIII and VIR.
|45.7||A.I||1. Two breaks: from face of shield through upper part of P, past lower curve of C, to dotted edge; from lower tip of r. leg of M to dotted edge.|
C.Ba Caduceus points between R.A.
|45.1||A.I||1. A number of breaks are common to all examples: from lower curve of S to dotted edge; from lower tip of first F to dotted edge; from each leg of R to dotted edge; between arms of final F.|
C.Ao Large group.
C.Bo Small group.
|46.2||O.I||1. Break from top of O diagonally to dotted edge.|
R.Al 103 [Unique.]
|47.9||L.VI||1. Three breaks: lower end of staff continues to dotted edge; downward from end of drapery on r.; two bulges beyond the dots above L.R.|
|47.5||L.VI||1. as above.|
|47.6||2. Break from upper tip of r. leg of second V toward dotted edge.|
|47.1||L.VI||1. as above.|
|47.2||2. as above.|
|47.3||3. Break diagonally from body at waist to fold of drapery at r.|
|47.10||L.VI||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. as above.|
|4. Break from corner of first L to staff.|
R.Aa Legend begins r. above. Elbow opposite A. IIII. VIR.A.P.F. straight.
|48.14||A. IV||1. Breaks through ankle of l. leg, and from bottom of rock to dotted edge.|
R.Ba 104 Legend begins l. under.
|48.3||A.IV||1. Two breaks: from midpoint of staff of L upward toward dotted edge; from dotted edge above R of REGVLVS outward.|
|–––48.1||A.IV||1. [Off flan]|
R.Ca Legend begins r. above. Elbow opposite F.
|48.5||A.VI||1. Break from r. armpit to intersection of staff and drapery.|
|48.12||A.V||2. Break from midpoint of staff of F diagonally upward toward curve of P.|
|48.8||A.VI||1. as above.|
|48.11||2. as above but touches curve of P.|
R.Da Legend begins r. above. Elbow opposite A. IIII. VIR.A.P.F curved.
R.Ao Legend begins r. above.
|49.3||O.IV||1. Two breaks: from face of Anchises toward middle bar of F; from middle bar of F through upper bar to dotted edge.|
|49.6||O.IV||1. as above but two breaks have joined.|
|2. Break from midpoint of base of first L diagonally inward toward knee of Anchises.|
|49.8||O.IV||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. Break from lower point of G diagonally inward toward knee of Anchises.|
R.Bo Legend begins l. above.
|49.2||O.III||1. Massive fault from ground line obscures lower l. leg of Aeneas and rises to waist.|
|2. Break from dotted edge inward at second I of IIII.|
|49.4||O.III||1. as above.|
|2. as above but extends toward fourth I.|
|49.1||O.III||1. as above.|
|2. as above but touches fourth I.|
|3. Break from upper tip of A through dot to midpoint of P.|
M.Am 106 Legend begins l. under.
|52.1||O.II||1. Four breaks: from top of staff of first F through dotted edge; from lower tip of l. leg of MV ligature to l. end of ground line; from upper r. tip of MV ligature to upper curve of S; from upper l. tip of N to dotted edge.|
|51.3||A.I||1. as above.|
|52.3||O.II||2. Break from top of staff of P to dotted edge.|
|–––52||O.II||1. as above.|
|2. [Off flan]|
|51.1||A.I||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. Break from dotted edge to upper l. tip of second V of MVSSIDIVS.|
|50.1||L.III||1. as above.|
|2. as above.|
|3. as above but break continues to midpoint of I.|
M.Bm Legend begins r. above. Spear points to first I of IIII.
|50.2||L.III||1. Break from upper l. tip of N to dotted edge regular for all|
|51.7||A.I||examples, when not off flan.|
|2. Break from l. end of shield to lower r. leg of Mars, ending in bulge on l. side of leg.|
|51.4||A.I||1. as above.|
|51.5||2. as above but break continues l. to spear.|
|52.6||O.II||1. as above.|
|52.10||2. as above.|
|3. Break from midpoint of base of second L inward toward l. leg of Mars.|
M.Cm Legend begins r. above. Spear points to S of LONGVS.
|50.3||L.III||1. Three breaks: from tip of V of LONGVS inward to ground line; from top of P to dotted edge; from tip of upper arm of final F to dotted edge.|
The reproductions of nos. 41.2 and .12 to which I have referred are not sufficiently clear to justify their inclusion in this table.
No. 47bis has been omitted from consideration. See the note at that number in the Catalogue.
No. 48.2 has been omitted, for its reproduction is illegible to me.
The catalogue reproductions of this piece are not clear enough to permit an estimate of the damage done the die in striking.
The reproduction of 52.13 is not sufficiently good to permit its classification.
|No.||Obverse portrait||Obv. die||Rev. die||Collection 108|
|C. VIBIVS VARVS|
|.4||O.II||V.A||Rome, Museo naz.|
|L. MVSSIDIVS LONGVS / cornucopia|
|No.||Obverse portrait||Obv. die||Rev. die||Collection|
|[.7 109||L.IV||M.Bc||New York 110|
6. Ex Jameson coll.
|.9||A.II||M.Ac||Rome, Museo naz.|
3. Ex Jameson coll. 4. R. Ratto sale, Lucerne, Jan. 23, 1924, no. 1364.
5. Formerly in Paris, exchanged as a duplicate. Its present habitat is not known to me. 7. Ars Classica sale XVIII, Lucerne, Oct. 10, 1938, no. 31. 12. M. Ratto sale, Milan, Jan. 19, 1956, no. 12.
|No.||Obverse portrait||Obv. die||Rev. die||Collection|
|.8||O.I||M.Cc||Rome, Museo naz.|
|[.10||O.II||M.Ac||Rome, Museo naz.|
1. Ex Prowe coll. 4. Formerly in Paris, exchanged as a duplicate. I have not seen a reproduction of this piece; the obverse and reverse dies are inferred from Bahrfeldt's notes on "Stempelgleichungen," p. 57. 7. R. Ratto sale, Lucerne, Jan. 23, 1924, no. 1448 = Leo Hamburger Auktions-Katalog No. 96, Frankfurt a. M., Oct. 25, 1932, no. 770. 10. Ex Gnecchi coll.
2. Bahrfeldt knew only the Cajazzo specimen, long thought to be unique. This second copy, struck from a different pairing of dies, has now come to light. A cast of it, bearing no mark of identification, is to be seen in the British Museum; in Berlin the collection of the Staatliche Museum possesses a wax impression of the coin with a note reading (apparently) "Nervegna", as Dr. Erxleben writes me, although the coin did not appear in the Martinetti-Nervegna sale (Sambon-Canessa), Rome-Paris, Nov. 18, 1907.I have been able to discover neither its origin nor its present location.
|.8||A.I||C.Ba||Rome, Museo naz.|
6. Formerly in Paris, exchanged as a duplicate. Its present whereabouts are not known to me. 9. Catalogo di Antiche Medaglie Consolari e di Famiglie Romane, racolte da Gennaro Riccio, Naples, 1855; pl. I, 4.
|No.||Obverse portrait||Obv. die||Rev. die||Collection|
|L. LIVINEIVS REGVLVS|
|.2||L.VI||R.Al||Rome, Museo naz.|
4. Ars Classica sale XVIII, Lucerne, Oct. 10, 1938, no. 28 = Glendining sale (V. J. E. Ryan coll.), London, Feb. 20,1951, no. 1581. 5. Ex Prowe coll. 8. The dies are inferred from Bahrfeldt's note, p. 59: "Sämtliche Stücke sind stempelgleich." 11. This piece is known to me only as an anonymous sulphur cast in the British Museum. It may represent the Berlin example. 12. The cast of the plates has been taken from an electrotype in the British Museum, again of unknown provenience.
This strange bronze, now in the Nicholson Museum in Sydney, was included in the Glendining sale (Henry Platt Hall coll.), London, July 19, 1950, no.663, and is said to have been earlier in the Museo Kircheriano in Rome. The coin is altogether unique; it may represent a trial strike of the gold dies. The piece is rather worn, and the illustration of the sales catalogue unsatisfactory; I have been unable to obtain a cast of it. But not only is the coin difficult to examine through its reproduction, it gives every indication of having been retooled. Thus, on the obverse, the hair of the portrait is too deeply cut in back. The reverse die appears to be R.Al: the position of the figure and the legend is the same. But the letters L.RE are not cut in the same manner as on the other examples from that die: note especially the wide loop of the R on the bronze, and the dependence of the right leg from the loop, not from the vertical of the letter. Similarly, the dots of the border are too widely spaced, as indeed they are too neat and clear for a coin wasted by wear and, apparently, corrosion. I am not alto- gether convinced that the piece is a bona fide product of the mint, or that, if bona fide, its present appearance represents the piece as it was issued. In any case the illustration available to me is inadequate, and its consideration has been almost entirely avoided in this monograph.
|No.||Obverse portrait||Obv. die||Rev. die||Collection|
|.5||A.VI||R.Ca||Rome, Museo Cap.|
2. Ars Classica sale XVIII, Lucerne, Oct. 10, 1938, no. 32 = Glendining sale (V. J. E. Ryan coll), London, Feb. 20, 1951, no. 1584. 5. Este stamp on obverse at lower left, between neck and legend. 7. Ex Imhoof-Blumer coll. 10. Ex Prowe coll. 13. R. Ratto sale (Morcom-Hands colls.), Lucerne, Feb. 8, 1928, no. 1674 = R. Ratto sale (Martini coll.), Lucerne, Feb. 24, 1930, no. 1351. The piece is distinguished by a large obverse gash. 14. Monnaies et Médailles sale XV, Basle, July 1, 1955, no. 704. Reverse gash at lower right.
7. Ex Prowe coll.
|No.||Obverse portrait||Obv. die||Rev. die||Collection|
|L. MVSSIDIVS LONGVS/Mars|
|.6||A.I||M.Bm||Rome, Museo naz.|
2. Attributed by Bahrfeldt to Vienna. I am informed by Dr. Guido Bruck that the piece is not and has not been in the Vienna collection. I take the reference to be a dittography of no. 51.5 or 51.7. 8. Similarly, Bahrfeldt erred in reporting a second example of this type in the Gnecchi collection, now in the Museo nazionale in Rome. I presume the reference to stem from a misreading of the Octavian piece of the same reverse type, no. 52.10 below, which was in the Gnecchi collection but was not included by Bahrfeldt. 9. Glendining sale (Henry Platt Hall coll.), London, July 19, 1950, no. 664. 10. A. Sambon sale (Maddalena coll.), Paris, May 7, 1903, no. 982. 11. Naville sale X, Geneva, June 15, 1925, no. 1745 = Glendining sale (V. J. E. Ryan coll.), London, Feb. 20, 1951, no. 1583.
|No.||Obverse portrait||Obv. die||Rev. die||Collection|
|[.10||O.II||M.Bm||Rome, Museo naz.|
8. I am informed by Dr. Kraft that the Munich example was lost during the last war, nor is a cast or a photograph to be found. 9. I have not succeeded in obtaining a cast or discovering a reproduction of the piece in Milan. 12. Glendining sale (V. J. E. Ryan coll.), London, Feb. 20, 1951, no. 1629. 13. E. Bourgey sale (Vidal Quadras y Ramón coll.), Paris, Nov. 4, 1913, no. 767.
As mentioned above, the catalogue numbers are those assigned by Bahrfeldt; the numbers in brackets are additions to his listings. Bahrfeldt appended to each type the history of each example of that type: place of discovery (when known), previous owners, auction sales in which the coin appeared, as well as any physical peculiarities of the piece. Following his example, I have included all additional information available to me, without repeating that already found in Bahrfeldt.
I have not attempted to trace the recent history of each of the coins on the market; since almost all are illustrated somewhere the results would not be commensurate with the labor involved, and one sale of Roman gold could undo them all. When the present owner is not known to me, a reference to a previous collection is given.
Bahrfeldt did not include this piece in his listing although he knew of it. But he relegated it to "Abbildungen," presumably because he lacked the weight of the coin. Since weight is not considered in this monograph, I have included in the Catalogue all the examples known to me, whether in the original or through casts or photographs.
The three coins attributed to New York, nos. 41.7, 42.11, and 52.11, pertain to the Durkee collection in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, but are to be found on deposit in the American Numismatic Society.