Finally...a lifetime portrait of Julius Caesar

I'm sorry Andrew, I mean no disrespect, neither to you nor to these other two scholars. However, in the world of real scholarship this approach doesn't cut it. Inasmuch as other renowned scholars such as Alfoldi, Crawford, Colin Kraay, have published their reasons for concluding that the issues Crawford lumps under 480 were NOT all issued prior to the assassination, we are going to need more than a sense of conviction by these two before we can rearrange things. If Ted passed away before the things the three of you discussed could be written in a defensible form, then it will be up to the remaining two of you to do it and put up the defense. Or it passes into oblivion.

I don't want list members to misunderstand me. I appreciated that Ted knew me from my days as a grad student at the University of Chicago, and was sympathetic to my repeated attempts to participate in the ANS Summer Seminars (which I never could afford). But from the impression I got of him in our various dialogs, I do not believe that he would have wanted his speculations canonized in this way without a more rigorous defense of the points of disagreement with previous scholarship. Then again, maybe they weren't just speculations. Maybe he had more.

Since we cannot yet access the relevant articles, and you seem to know something, can you say: Have these reasons been articulated yet, or are they likely to be?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I thought I posted a reply but it disappeared into the ether. Here goes again.

My answer was to the question "which scholars" think the 480 issue was made before the Ides. Since both have published, and the scholars are well known, I sort of answered the question as asked. I think... There's then your follow-on question "has there been a detailed rebuttal article published" (my paraphrase). No there has not. One is certainly needed. Good prompt.

Both studies that discuss in overview their views are readily accessed. They aren't hidden. Arma et Nummi was written in 2004 I think, and Ted's paper in 2015. Woytek's book is widely available. The researchgate link to Buttrey's paper in the Journal of Ancient History is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Preparations_for_the_Parthian_Campaign_44_BCE

There's a difficult point about how scholars address findings that they have not fully researched but are on the back burner to be published later. Ted's main reasons for the pre Ides dating are (1) we have misinterpreted DICT IN PERPETVO, and he takes this from his knowledge of Latin use: his view is it always meant Prorogued (continued) until after the Parthian Campaign, not Perpetual. (2) the coinage only makes sense as a Parthian campaign finance - there would have been no earthly reason for the Rome mint to have calmly continued producing a massive coinage during a period of absolute chaos before Antony arrived (3) the awkward coin, with head of Caesar / Desultor, is almost certainly an accidental (or perhaps mischievously deliberate) mule (4) there's no reason given evidence prior that Rome couldn't produce a 200 die coinage in a couple of months, especially as they plainly seem to be from different parallel workshops (5) Alfoeldi offers no positive evidence in contrary except the point about the mule and the title. Woytek's view is the mule is clearly a mule, and the purpose of coinage must indicate a pre Ides date regardless of titles.

However .. neither author sat down to specifically write a line-item rebuttal of Alfoeldi. They no doubt have/had all the arguments ready but they have more important things to work on. I discussed with both at end 2016 and neither had the time to do the heavy lifting for a full analysis that takes into account dies, workshops etc. I might do it. When I have time.

 

I wonder how much the market would change once the majority of dealers support the hypothesis that all of the 480 issue are in fact lifetime portraits. There seems to be a difference right now in price between the lifetime coins and the supposedly posthumous types from the 480 issue.

 

That's an interesting query Andrew, but the hypothesis is not yet developed well enough for it to displace the more detailed scholarship, so the day of which you speak seems to be a ways off.