Balbinus denarius

I'll also throw in my Pup-i-en-us sestertius, celebrating the victory over Maximinus.

Pupienus AE Sestertius.
IMP CAES M CLOD PVPIENVS AVG, laureate, draped & cuirassed bust right
VICTORIA AVGG S-C, Victory standing front, looking left, holding wreath and palm branch. RIC 23a, Cohen 38.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice. Sestertius.

 

@curtislclay, a few further thoughts. First, I'll just note that it seems from other examples of my coin that the "bushy hairstyle" of the figure on the reverse doesn't consist entirely of hair; a substantial portion of his "hair" looks like some kind of large wreath with a portion protruding in the back. See this example at https://www.coinarchives.com/e3d6234f3c3819fc220bd14d4f37f340/img/leu_winterthur/e11/image01836.jpg:



Second, I had a chance this morning to look at some examples of the Antoninus Pius "GENIO SENATVS"-type denarius, and agree that its reverse figure of the Genius of the Senate is almost identical to the reverse figure on my Balbinus type. See these examples from acsearch, for anyone not familiar with the Antoninus Pius coin:






There is, however, one obvious and major difference: the scepter held in the left hand of the Genius of the Senate on the Antoninus Pius coin bears no resemblance whatsoever to the object held in the left hand of the reverse figure on the Balbinus coin, whether in size, location, or the way it's held. Nor is there an orb at the end of the object on the Balbinus coin, as there is on the scepter on the Antoninus Pius coins.

Therefore, your conclusion (and, I assume, the conclusions of the authorities you cite) that because the figures are otherwise essentially identical, the object held by the reverse figure on the Balbinus coin -- his "attribute" -- "has to be a short scepter, not a sword," must be based on the premise that this major and obvious difference between the two objects is meaningless and without significance.

Perhaps these authorities explain that premise, but I view it as not proven. Why shouldn't that one difference have a significance? It seems unlikely to be entirely meaningless. Especially given that the object on the Balbinus reverse is positioned and held exactly like a short sword, and not like a scepter. Why couldn't the figure combine the attributes of the Genius of the Senate and an Emperor in a time of civil war, and be holding a sword instead of a scepter -- especially given that, as you point out, Balbinus and his co-Emperor came from the Senate? Perhaps it's supposed to be Balbinus "as" Genius of the Senate, and that's why Sear equivocates on the issue in RCV III. In any event, the conclusion that the reverse figure on my coin must have been intended to represent the Genius of the Senate appears inescapable, but, absent further elaboration, I view the identity of the object he holds in his left hand as a still-unresolved issue.

 

All of that said, the object on the reverse of my coin looks more to me like a cricket bat than either a sword or a scepter!

 

Funny comment. I could never understand that I could own a Cricket Bat when I expatted to the UK, but I was specifically prohibited from bringing an American Baseball Bat when I moved there.

 

DonnaML,

Thanks for your illustrated objections!

But (a) the object on Balbinus' coins is much too thin to be a parazonium. Plus the scepter is a standard attribute of the Genius of the Senate, and different lengths, ornamentation, or ways of holding it do not change its meaning.

(b) Since the parazonium is a weapon, I don't think you will find it elsewhere associated with a togate figure, the toga being the garb of the unarmed Roman citizen. The parazonium is usually associated with military dress, that is cloak (paludamentum) and cuirass (breastplate).

(c) Balbinus' identical type of Genius of the Senate with short scepter was also used for Caracalla in 214 AD, P M TR P XVII COS IIII P P (RIC 246), and for Volusian in 253 AD, P M TR P IIII COS II, RIC 140, pl. 14.6. Would you want to see here too a combination of Genius of the Senate and emperor, carrying a thin parazonium rather than his standard scepter?

 

@curtislclay , thanks so much for elaborating further, with additional examples of depictions of the Genius of the Senate. (I don't have access to the articles you cited.) I wasn't objecting so much as I was raising questions, because of that clear difference between the objects held by the figure on the Balbinus reverse and the figure on the "Genio Senatvs" coins. I am now persuaded. Especially given that when I looked up "parazonium," it described that kind of sword or dagger as "triangular" in shape, which this object certainly isn't. As I said, it looks more like a cricket bat!

The only remaining questions I have are why you think Mattingly, Sydenham, and Sutherland identified the object as a parazonium in the first place back in 1938 in RIC Vol. IV-2 (see p. 169), and why Sear still equivocated on the issue as recently as 2005 -- even though I presume he was familiar with the same arguments that you make, given that he mentions the "short scepter" and "Genius of the Senate" alternatives in the first place.

Edited to add: I notice that in RIC IV-3, published in 1949, the same three authors do identify the object held by the figure on the reverse of Volusian's RIC 140 as a "short transverse scepter" -- but still identify that figure as the Emperor rather than the Genius of the Senate, as they did with Balbinus. In RIC IV-1, in 1936, Mattingly and Sydenham similarly identified the figure on the reverse of Caracalla's RIC 246 as Caracalla himself, but identified the object as a "baton" rather than either a parazonium or a short scepter. So, there's an inconsistency with respect to how they identified the similar object held by a similar figure on three different coins -- they called it three different things. That inconsistency has carried over onto the OCRE website, which retains the books' identifications of the reverse figures on the three coins and the objects they hold, even though the photographic examples of those coins provided on the website show that all three objects are essentially identical.

 

Nice coin Donna. I still don't have a Balbinus. Every time I consider him it seems something else more important comes up.
I do have his "more svelt" partner, Pupienus...

 

That reminds me...

 

That's great! I'm a physician in RI and will post this in a hospital. A pretty clear way to explain social distancing to some patients!

 

LOL, I received that in a text from one of my daughters today! I thought exactly the same. Social Distancing DEFINED.

 

I’ve enjoyed this thread a lot. For comparison, I thought it might be nice to see an example of a parazonium (and spear) being carried by a figure, in this case Titus, in military dress.

 

Except that loss of sense of smell is a symptom of COVID-19.