Finally...a lifetime portrait of Julius Caesar

Thanks for this @Carausius , I have just re-read Alfoldi's English paper "The portrait of Caesar on the denarii of 44 BC and the sequence of the issues". In it he refutes some of those who have refuted him and his theories. Are there more recent papers of those who dispute Alfoldi?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm afraid so Andrew. That paper is dated to 1958, 15 years prior to Crawford (1974). In the interim (1966-68) Alföldi published his Beiträge which updated his earlier work and were the point of reference for most of Crawford's reaction. Of the 1958 article Andrew McCabe said this: "...which however pre-dates by decades his definitive study in German, as well as pre-dating the proposal by Crawford within RRC. So, technically dated but of interest due the dearth of English language discussion on the subject."

I am not familiar with the studies to which @Carausius refers, and since no references are given we will have to ask him to help us with that. So Carausius can you unpack "Some scholars believe...."?

 

@lrbguy

I have read the Crawford section, but like you I did not find it very helpful in terms of chronology, and that is why I did not include it. That and the fact that you referred to it yourself.

I will be interested to read @Carausius ’ sources. Sorry that I could not help further.

 

For a fixed chronology, Crawford is indeed frustrating, but he does work with a relative chronology based on progressions in both obverse and reverse dies. One point he makes that turns around my thinking a great deal is this: "Another group of denarii, 12-14, indicates the possession of the office of Pontifex Maximus by the addition of a veil to the portrait, the denarii with the title PARENS PATRIAE show a lituus and an apex as well as a veil." (p. 494)

I had supposed that the veil, as an emblem of mourning, was a signal that an issue is posthumous, but Crawford argues that among the denarii with the DICT IN PERPETVO inscription, veiled and unveiled portraits are contemporaneous. That the veil on the denarii of JC are primarily to be associated with his priestly office and not per se his death is an eye-opener for me.

For Crawford the issue with IMPER inscribed on the obverse is the first issue immediately after the Ides of March, followed by the PARENS PATRIAE issues. Of the two denarius types with this inscription, he hedges only slightly in assigning the crossword reverse to the period after Caesar's death.

 

@lrbguy

I had read about the veiled portraits. In fact Sear (RCV) 2000, places these issues as lifetime issues. Your 480/19 is listed as posthumous. I wonder if Sear mentions anything about the chronology in his book "The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators". I may have to order a copy to find out.

However, this is not the whole story. In 1978 David Sear and Robert Loosely published the 3rd revised edition of Seaby's Roman Silver Coins. In the introduction to this edition he says that Crawford's RRC 1974 "has necessitated a reappraisal of the chronology of this series". On page 107 the book reports that the issues of Maridianus were probably struck before the assassination. Obviously Sear must have changed his mind between 1978 and 2000. One more interesting fact about your coin. Apparently, again according to Sear (1978), "This is the first occurrence of the complete title of the moneyer on a coin".

 

I've not looked into the references quoted, but the following is Andrew McCabe's note to the sale of his example of a 480/11 in an auction last year.

"All of the portrait coins of Julius Caesar from RRC series 480 were likely produced prior to his assassination on 15 March 44 BC. The fabric, style, and minting techniques of the coins indicate a number of parallel workshops and not a single sequence as laid out by Alföldi and Crawford. That these coins all pre-date 44 BC is also the view of Bernhard Woytek (see Arma et Nummi, 2004) and Professor T.V. Buttrey, who in a 2015 paper suggests the entire issue was intended as financing for Julius Caesar’s proposed Parthian campaign. The anomolous type RRC 480/20, with an obverse of Caesar and a reverse of Antony’s desultor issue, and known in very few examples from one obverse die, can most easily be explained as an unintended mule."

 

Thanks @zumbly , that is very helpful.

 

Thanks for chiming in zumbly. I tried acsearch. Do you by chance happen to know the auction house and sale date where his coin was offered/sold? Presumably you saw the lot being offered?

No sooner had I posted, I revised the search:
CNG Esale 408, lot 436, Oct 25, 2017,

 

Sure, it was a CNG sale. Here's the link to the lot:
https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=346676

 

Sorry for the late reply, folks. I'm recovering from eye surgery, so I'm moving a bit slowly. It appears @zumbly has answered for me. My recollection of @Andrew McCabe summary was the source for my earlier post. Funny that I can't recall what I had for lunch yesterday, but I remember someone else's summary of research on an arcane point of RR coinage! I've not independently read Woytek's work (wish he'd written it in English!) or the late Prof. Buttrey's paper. I will get a copy of Buttrey's paper at some point.

 

Thanks @Carausius I hope your recovery goes well and quickly.

 

Wow Carausius, thanks for going to the trouble. I hope it works out okay for ya. I appreciate being able to confirm on the references so we can separate fact from fancy, and this helps. Best to you on the recovery.

 

Maybe its just me, but that first coin looks like a cast fake.

 

How do you figure that?

 

"Some scholars believe..."

• Bernhard Woytek in Arma et Nummi places all the 480 Caesar portrait coins before 15th March 44.
• Ted Buttrey in "Caesar at Play: Some Preparations for the Parthian Campaign, 44 B.C." Journal of Ancient History 2015, places all the 480 Caesar portrait coins before 15th March 44.

Buttrey (sadly no longer with us) and Woytek are as scholarly as they come. Both are sure the odd Caesar Antony hybrid is an accidental later mule.

I've discussed this with both (together actually, in Cambridge). I've some additional technical observations that support their views, and that can help explain why so many others before them including Alfoeldi took a different path. Crawford's sequence is essentially a minor edit of Alfoeldi. Whilst Ted and Bernhard have already published, in both cases it was in the context of a wider story, but I'm convinced they were on to the real truth. I might add my non-scholarly pennyworth in time.

 

Thanks @Andrew McCabe for the references and the analysis. I will see if I can find the articles on Jstor.

 

I tried and failed to get the Buttrey paper on JSTOR. If you succeed @Orfew please let me know your search criteria. Otherwise, I may ask ANS library staff for a copy, if in their collection (a benefit of membership).

 

Temper your anticipation. Neither author explicitly addresses the detailed dating in the manner of Alfoeldi. Both take it as obvious that the coins pre-date 15th March on historical grounds, and leave it at that. But these are two pretty important scholars who have spent their lives specialising in Imperatorial coinage. They've separately concluded on a pre March 15th dating for different but compatible reasons. They understand the coinage very well, and are eminent enough that neither felt they had to write a take-down of Alfoeldi. They just think the whole post 15th March idea to be completely unevidenced.

 

I did not find it there either. I also checked my University library catalogue, and they do not have a copy either. I think I will contact the ANS tomorrow and get a copy, if indeed they have it.

I appreciate the warning @Andrew McCabe , but I would still like to read the paper. I was in contact with Dr. Buttrey several months before he died. He was always very kind.

 

Odd for this day and age, the only shareable copy I have is an offprint given me by Ted. I don't know where it physically is, as my system isn't really geared up towards filing paper articles. So I've tended to consult the editors draft Ted shared with me, which I have electronically. That however I can't share as it includes notes to editors etc. thus isn't definitive. But it was published. I may pull out extracts to share here in time.