Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Are there any RR coins struck in the name of Marcus Tullius Cicero?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7971434, member: 110350"]It's not really remarkable that there were no Roman Republican coins in his name, for the simple reason that he never served in the office of moneyer. However, his son-in-law (Tullia's husband) did issue a very well-known type:</p><p><br /></p><p>[References to Cicero in boldface]</p><p><br /></p><p>Roman Republic, C. [Caius/Gaius] Calpurnius Piso L.f. [son of Lucius] Frugi [<i><b>son-in-law of Cicero, married to Cicero's daughter Tullia</b></i>], AR Denarius, 67-59 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head of Apollo right in high relief, hair long and in ringlets; behind, control symbol ɸ (Greek letter phi) (Crawford obverse die 32; Hersh 1976* obverse die O-33) / Rev. Naked horseman galloping right wearing shaped conical cap, holding reins but carrying no palm branch or other object; above, control symbol sword [Crawford] or knife [Hersh 1976] with curved blade [Crawford reverse die 43, Hersh 1976 reverse die R-1038]; beneath horse, C• PISO• L• F• FRVG [with VG blurred on die]. Crawford 408/1a [Apollo laureate rather than wearing fillet]; BMCRR Rome 3774 [this die combination]; Hersh 1976 at p. 32, Corpus No. 89 [this die combination]; RSC I Calpurnia 24j [Apollo laureate/horseman wearing conical cap & carrying no palm branch or other object]; Harlan, Michael, <i>Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins</i> <i>63 BCE - 49 BCE</i> (2d ed. 2015) (“Harlan RRM II”), Ch. 7 at pp. 54-59; Sear RCV I 348; Sydenham 846. 18 mm., 3.86 g. 6 h. [<i>Double die-match to Ira & Larry Goldberg Auction 80, Lot 3048, 03.06.2014 (see </i><a href="https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900.*" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900.*" rel="nofollow"><i>https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900</i></a><i>), previously sold</i> by <i>LHS Numismatik AG, Auction 100, Lot 398, 23/04/2007.</i> ]**</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1382804[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>* Hersh, Charles A., “A Study of the Coinage of the Moneyer C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi,” <i>The Numismatic Chronicle, Seventh Series, Vol. 16</i> at pp. 7-63 (1976). See <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents" rel="nofollow">https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents</a>).</p><p><br /></p><p> **The basic design of this type -- the head of Apollo on the obverse, and a naked horseman racing on the reverse, with nearly 500 known different die combinations and configurations of control symbols, objects held by the horseman, etc. -- is the same as the design of the massive issue of the moneyer’s father Lucius, dating to 90 BCE (Crawford 340/1), with more than 1,000 known die combinations, issued to aid in funding the Social War. Both issues “recall the Ludi Apollinares [the annual games held in honor of Apollo], converted into a permanent festival as a result of the proposal of C. Calpurnius Piso, [urban] Pr[aetor] [in] 211,” an ancestor of our father-and-son moneyers. See Crawford Vol. I p. 344; see also Hersh 1976 p. 8 (the design of Crawford 408 is a “direct reference” to the annual Ludi Apollinares proposed by the moneyer’s ancestor); Harlan RRM II at p. 56 (explaining that the Ludi Apollinares were made permanent in the same year, 211, in which Hannibal broke off his assault on Rome without ever joining battle, an outcome ascribed to Apollo’s divine intervention)..</p><p><br /></p><p>Varying dates for the son’s issue (Crawford 408/1a-1b), according to different authorities, include the following:</p><p><br /></p><p>67 BCE (Crawford, RSC I, RBW Collection, Sear RCV I [but see Sear RCV I at p. 138, citing Crawford’s date but noting the “hoard evidence which would seem to indicate a period of issue closer to 60 BC”]);</p><p><br /></p><p>64 BCE (BMCRR);</p><p><br /></p><p>63 BCE (Hersh 1976 at p. 8);</p><p><br /></p><p>61 BCE (Charles Hersh and Alan Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” <i>Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), </i>1984, Vol. 29 pp. 103-134 (1984) [“Hersh & Walker 1984”], at Table 2, No. 27);</p><p><br /></p><p>59 BCE (Harlan RRM II at Ch. 7 p. 57).</p><p><br /></p><p>The different theories over the years for the date of this issue have been based primarily on <b>various known events in the life of the moneyer (“Caius”) -- including the basic premise that Caius must have been moneyer prior to his appointment as quaestor in 58 BCE and his death in 57 BCE -- and in the life of his father-in-law Cicero</b>, as well as on stylistic evidence and, perhaps most persuasively, on hoard evidence.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, Crawford’s proposed date of 67 BCE was the year when</p><p>Caius’s relative Gaius Calpurnius Piso was consul and <b>when Caius himself -- born either in 89 BCE (Harlan RRM II p. 57) or 87 BCE (Hersh 1976 p. 8) -- was betrothed to Cicero’s only daughter Tullia, then 9 years old. (See Harlan RRM II p. 54, quoting Cicero’s letter to Atticus from late 67 BCE: “We have betrothed little Tullia to [C]aius Piso Frugi, son of Lucius.”) </b></p><p><br /></p><p><b>But Harlan argues that Caius was far too young in 67 BCE, at only 22 or 20, to serve as a mint magistrate. And Hersh 1976’s comprehensive die study points out (at p. 8) that Caius and Tullia “were married in 63 BC, when Cicero was consul,” and, therefore, proposes that Caius “probably was a moneyer during 63 BC,” during Cicero’s consulship.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>However, perhaps most persuasively, Hersh & Walker 1984 dates the issue based on the evidence of the Mesagne Hoard of 5,940 denarii, which was discovered in 1979/1980, and buried ca. 58 BCE (see p. 103). The hoard contained 198 coins of Caius (id. p. 112), in the top five of all the issues in the hoard, right behind the 199 coins from the still-circulating issue of his father Lucius (id. pp. 108-109). Crucially, " In the Mesagne hoard the coins of [Caius] . . . were in almost mint condition, where not marred by corrosion during burial,” unlike the heavily-circulated coins from older issues. Therefore, <b>“[Caius], who was Cicero's son-in-law, must have been a moneyer in ca. 60 B.C.,” given that “he died in 57 B.C., after his term as quaestor in 58 B.C. had been completed.”</b> (Id. p. 133.) Thus, in the article’s chart of assigned dates based on the Mesagne Hoard, Hersh & Walker settle on 61 BCE as the date for the issue. (See id. Table 2, No.27.) Harlan theorizes, however, that Caius’s “most immediate need to remind the voters of his family traditions” -- i.e., by issuing coins with the same basic design as the huge and still-circulating issue of his father Lucius from 90 BCE -- “came just prior to his election as quaestor for 58, and I, therefore, date the coin to 59.” Harlan RRM II at p. 57.</p><p><br /></p><p>Harlan’s date has not been adopted by other authorities, so far as I know. Surprisingly, even Hersh & Walker’s well-supported date of 61 BCE, proposed almost 40 years ago, has been ignored by more dealers than have followed it. Instead, Crawford’s 67 BCE date continues to be widely used. Even the highly-regarded RBW Collection catalog, published in 2014, uses 67 BCE as the date for the 23 coins of C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi it includes -- not mentioning the 61 BCE date in Hersh & Walker 1984, or even the 63 BCE date proposed in Hersh 1976, despite citing and relying upon the latter study. At least David Sear’s RCV I (Millennium Edition), although placing the issue in 67 BCE, notes at p. 138 that the hoard evidence places the issue “closer to 60 BC” (see above).</p><p><br /></p><p><b>In any event, Caius’s term as quaestor was preoccupied with his father-in-law’s exile, and he did not live long thereafter. See Hersh 1976 at p. 8: “While in office [Caius] devoted his efforts to trying to obtain the recall of Cicero from banishment in Macedonia, whither he had gone following the legislation sponsored by his enemy, Publius Clodius Pulcher. At the end of his quaestorship [Caius] was allotted the provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, but he remained in Rome to continue his efforts on Cicero’s behalf. He died during the early summer of 57 B.C., before the return of Cicero to Italy on 5 August 57 B.C., following his recall.” See also Harlan RRM II at p. 59, quoting at length from Cicero’s tribute to his son-in-law in his <i>Brutus</i>, written eleven years later in 46 BCE. Cicero stated, among other things, “I have never known anyone with greater zeal and industry -- although I might easily say, anyone even with more talent, who surpassed my son-in-law [C]aius Piso. . . . [H]e seemed to fly not to run. . . . I do not think that there was anyone who could compare with him in self-control and piety and in every other virtue.”</b></p><p><br /></p><p>[Remainder of footnotes omitted.][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="DonnaML, post: 7971434, member: 110350"]It's not really remarkable that there were no Roman Republican coins in his name, for the simple reason that he never served in the office of moneyer. However, his son-in-law (Tullia's husband) did issue a very well-known type: [References to Cicero in boldface] Roman Republic, C. [Caius/Gaius] Calpurnius Piso L.f. [son of Lucius] Frugi [[I][B]son-in-law of Cicero, married to Cicero's daughter Tullia[/B][/I]], AR Denarius, 67-59 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head of Apollo right in high relief, hair long and in ringlets; behind, control symbol ɸ (Greek letter phi) (Crawford obverse die 32; Hersh 1976* obverse die O-33) / Rev. Naked horseman galloping right wearing shaped conical cap, holding reins but carrying no palm branch or other object; above, control symbol sword [Crawford] or knife [Hersh 1976] with curved blade [Crawford reverse die 43, Hersh 1976 reverse die R-1038]; beneath horse, C• PISO• L• F• FRVG [with VG blurred on die]. Crawford 408/1a [Apollo laureate rather than wearing fillet]; BMCRR Rome 3774 [this die combination]; Hersh 1976 at p. 32, Corpus No. 89 [this die combination]; RSC I Calpurnia 24j [Apollo laureate/horseman wearing conical cap & carrying no palm branch or other object]; Harlan, Michael, [I]Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins[/I] [I]63 BCE - 49 BCE[/I] (2d ed. 2015) (“Harlan RRM II”), Ch. 7 at pp. 54-59; Sear RCV I 348; Sydenham 846. 18 mm., 3.86 g. 6 h. [[I]Double die-match to Ira & Larry Goldberg Auction 80, Lot 3048, 03.06.2014 (see [/I][URL='https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900.*'][I]https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900[/I][/URL][I]), previously sold[/I] by [I]LHS Numismatik AG, Auction 100, Lot 398, 23/04/2007.[/I] ]** [ATTACH=full]1382804[/ATTACH] * Hersh, Charles A., “A Study of the Coinage of the Moneyer C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi,” [I]The Numismatic Chronicle, Seventh Series, Vol. 16[/I] at pp. 7-63 (1976). See [URL]https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents[/URL]). **The basic design of this type -- the head of Apollo on the obverse, and a naked horseman racing on the reverse, with nearly 500 known different die combinations and configurations of control symbols, objects held by the horseman, etc. -- is the same as the design of the massive issue of the moneyer’s father Lucius, dating to 90 BCE (Crawford 340/1), with more than 1,000 known die combinations, issued to aid in funding the Social War. Both issues “recall the Ludi Apollinares [the annual games held in honor of Apollo], converted into a permanent festival as a result of the proposal of C. Calpurnius Piso, [urban] Pr[aetor] [in] 211,” an ancestor of our father-and-son moneyers. See Crawford Vol. I p. 344; see also Hersh 1976 p. 8 (the design of Crawford 408 is a “direct reference” to the annual Ludi Apollinares proposed by the moneyer’s ancestor); Harlan RRM II at p. 56 (explaining that the Ludi Apollinares were made permanent in the same year, 211, in which Hannibal broke off his assault on Rome without ever joining battle, an outcome ascribed to Apollo’s divine intervention).. Varying dates for the son’s issue (Crawford 408/1a-1b), according to different authorities, include the following: 67 BCE (Crawford, RSC I, RBW Collection, Sear RCV I [but see Sear RCV I at p. 138, citing Crawford’s date but noting the “hoard evidence which would seem to indicate a period of issue closer to 60 BC”]); 64 BCE (BMCRR); 63 BCE (Hersh 1976 at p. 8); 61 BCE (Charles Hersh and Alan Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” [I]Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), [/I]1984, Vol. 29 pp. 103-134 (1984) [“Hersh & Walker 1984”], at Table 2, No. 27); 59 BCE (Harlan RRM II at Ch. 7 p. 57). The different theories over the years for the date of this issue have been based primarily on [B]various known events in the life of the moneyer (“Caius”) -- including the basic premise that Caius must have been moneyer prior to his appointment as quaestor in 58 BCE and his death in 57 BCE -- and in the life of his father-in-law Cicero[/B], as well as on stylistic evidence and, perhaps most persuasively, on hoard evidence. For example, Crawford’s proposed date of 67 BCE was the year when Caius’s relative Gaius Calpurnius Piso was consul and [B]when Caius himself -- born either in 89 BCE (Harlan RRM II p. 57) or 87 BCE (Hersh 1976 p. 8) -- was betrothed to Cicero’s only daughter Tullia, then 9 years old. (See Harlan RRM II p. 54, quoting Cicero’s letter to Atticus from late 67 BCE: “We have betrothed little Tullia to [C]aius Piso Frugi, son of Lucius.”) [/B] [B]But Harlan argues that Caius was far too young in 67 BCE, at only 22 or 20, to serve as a mint magistrate. And Hersh 1976’s comprehensive die study points out (at p. 8) that Caius and Tullia “were married in 63 BC, when Cicero was consul,” and, therefore, proposes that Caius “probably was a moneyer during 63 BC,” during Cicero’s consulship.[/B] However, perhaps most persuasively, Hersh & Walker 1984 dates the issue based on the evidence of the Mesagne Hoard of 5,940 denarii, which was discovered in 1979/1980, and buried ca. 58 BCE (see p. 103). The hoard contained 198 coins of Caius (id. p. 112), in the top five of all the issues in the hoard, right behind the 199 coins from the still-circulating issue of his father Lucius (id. pp. 108-109). Crucially, " In the Mesagne hoard the coins of [Caius] . . . were in almost mint condition, where not marred by corrosion during burial,” unlike the heavily-circulated coins from older issues. Therefore, [B]“[Caius], who was Cicero's son-in-law, must have been a moneyer in ca. 60 B.C.,” given that “he died in 57 B.C., after his term as quaestor in 58 B.C. had been completed.”[/B] (Id. p. 133.) Thus, in the article’s chart of assigned dates based on the Mesagne Hoard, Hersh & Walker settle on 61 BCE as the date for the issue. (See id. Table 2, No.27.) Harlan theorizes, however, that Caius’s “most immediate need to remind the voters of his family traditions” -- i.e., by issuing coins with the same basic design as the huge and still-circulating issue of his father Lucius from 90 BCE -- “came just prior to his election as quaestor for 58, and I, therefore, date the coin to 59.” Harlan RRM II at p. 57. Harlan’s date has not been adopted by other authorities, so far as I know. Surprisingly, even Hersh & Walker’s well-supported date of 61 BCE, proposed almost 40 years ago, has been ignored by more dealers than have followed it. Instead, Crawford’s 67 BCE date continues to be widely used. Even the highly-regarded RBW Collection catalog, published in 2014, uses 67 BCE as the date for the 23 coins of C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi it includes -- not mentioning the 61 BCE date in Hersh & Walker 1984, or even the 63 BCE date proposed in Hersh 1976, despite citing and relying upon the latter study. At least David Sear’s RCV I (Millennium Edition), although placing the issue in 67 BCE, notes at p. 138 that the hoard evidence places the issue “closer to 60 BC” (see above). [B]In any event, Caius’s term as quaestor was preoccupied with his father-in-law’s exile, and he did not live long thereafter. See Hersh 1976 at p. 8: “While in office [Caius] devoted his efforts to trying to obtain the recall of Cicero from banishment in Macedonia, whither he had gone following the legislation sponsored by his enemy, Publius Clodius Pulcher. At the end of his quaestorship [Caius] was allotted the provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, but he remained in Rome to continue his efforts on Cicero’s behalf. He died during the early summer of 57 B.C., before the return of Cicero to Italy on 5 August 57 B.C., following his recall.” See also Harlan RRM II at p. 59, quoting at length from Cicero’s tribute to his son-in-law in his [I]Brutus[/I], written eleven years later in 46 BCE. Cicero stated, among other things, “I have never known anyone with greater zeal and industry -- although I might easily say, anyone even with more talent, who surpassed my son-in-law [C]aius Piso. . . . [H]e seemed to fly not to run. . . . I do not think that there was anyone who could compare with him in self-control and piety and in every other virtue.”[/B] [Remainder of footnotes omitted.][/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Are there any RR coins struck in the name of Marcus Tullius Cicero?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...