Featured Republican Denarius that has it all: Great Story, Interesting Type and Old Provenance

I am very excited about this coin but it was a hard one to write up because it has so many different points of interest in its favor. I chose to break the write up into 4 parts: The Moneyer, The Trial, The Temple and The Provenance. Thanks for reading!


Roman Republican
Q. Cassius Longinus, moneyer
AR Denarius, Rome mint, struck 55 BC
Dia.: 20.2 mm
Wt.: 3.95g
Obv.: Head of Libertas right, wearing hair collected into a knot, decorated with jewels, and falling down neck, and wearing single-drop earring and necklace of pendants; LIBERT upward to left, Q • CASSIVS downward to right.
Rev.: Temple of Vesta, circular, surmounted by figure holding scepter and patera, flanked by antefixes; curule chair within; urn to left, tabella (voting tablet) [inscribed AC (Absolvo Condemno)] to right.
Ref.: Crawford 428/2; Sydenham 918
Ex Prof Dr Hildebrecht Hommel Collection, acquired from Hirsch, Auction 63, 1969, lot 2454, Ex Minotaur Coins

The Moneyer
Q. Cassius Longinus was a supporter of Caesar in the Roman Civil War against Pompey. After serving as moneyer in 55 BC he became Tribune in 49 BC but was forced to flee to Caesar’s camp. Caesar made him governor of Hispania Ulterior where he exercised his power with such cruelty and incompetence that both his subjects and part of his legions rebelled. He was allowed to board a ship to flee back to Italy but he drowned when his ship was caught in a storm and sank at the mouth of the Ebro River ca. 47 BC.

The Trial
As moneyer, Longinus chose to reference his ancestor L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (offices ca. 137 – 113 BC), who had served as Consul, Tribune, Censor as well as special inquisitor in one of the most famous trials in Roman history.

In 115 BC, three Vestal Virgins (Aemilia, Licinia and Marcia) were accused of having broken their sacred vow of chastity. Aemilia, first entered into a relationship with a young Roman aristocrat and then served as a matchmaker between the friends of her lover and the other two Vestal Virgins. The women were turned in and Aemilia was sentenced to death by the Pontifex Maximus. The lower class was outraged that the other two Vestals were not punished. On top of the sacrilegious element to the crime the lower classes felt that the Vestals (as members of rich senatorial families) were being held to a different standard than the general populous for such a serious breach of religious law.


Statue showing the attire of a Vestal Virgin during the imperial period. I took this photo in the House of the Vestals in the Roman Forum. (Author's Photo)

In 113 BC one of the tribunes reopened the case for trial and assigned Ravilla to oversee it. Ravilla held the trial in the Temple of Vesta as seen on the reverse of this coin. On the reverse we see the temple. Inside there is a curule chair from which Ravilla oversaw the proceedings. On the right we see a tabella (wax covered wooden tablet) that the jurors used to inscribe their vote and on the left we see the amphora where the jurors would deposit their tabella during voting. On these coins the tabella typically has an “A” for Absolvo and “C” for Condemno but mine is too worn to identify these. However, I did read that it was legitimate for jurors to cast a blank tabella as a form of “I don’t know” which would tend to favor the defense since tie votes were decided in favor of the defendant.

In this famous trial the Vestals were found guilty and sentenced to the traditional punishment for a Vestal breaking her vows… to be buried alive!

The obverse of liberty on the front might seem strangely out of place but it too is meant as a reference to an action of Ravilla. During his tribunate in 137 BC, Ravilla had sponsored a law (the lex Cassia tabellaria) that made jury voting anonymous. This was a big deal because without it the lower class would be subject to intimidation by the great families in trials such as the Vestal Trial of 113 BC. By sponsoring this law, the Cassia gens had liberated the people from the influence of the elite and so Libertas was seen as an appropriate theme. This imagery can be seen as meaning to bolster Longinus’s Populares credentials.

The Temple
The Temple of Vesta was probably one of the oldest buildings in the city of Rome. The original pre-historic temple was probably a circular wooden hut which housed the communal village fire. It is likely that the young women of the village were responsible for looking after the fire while the older men and women were out hunting or performing other necessary tasks. Over time these young women became the Vestal Virgins and the circular hut became the refined temple of the republican and imperial periods. All to house and look after the sacred fire.



Models showing what the Palatine and surrounding area may have looked like in pre-historic Rome. The circular huts were likely a precursor to the elegant round temples of the later city, particularly the Temple of Vesta. (Author's Photos)

The building shown on this coin is probably the fourth building to stand on the site. It was built ca. 241 BC after the previous building had burned in a fire. This fourth temple was rebuilt or remodeled by Augustus after sustaining flood damage. The remains of the temple seen in the forum today are probably the seventh iteration of the structure whose remodeling was undertaken by Septimius Severus around AD 204.



Top Right: Remains of the Temple of Vesta as seen from the Roman Forum. Top Left: View of the courtyard of the House of the Vestals looking toward the Palatine Hill. Bottom: The remains of the Temple of Vesta as seen from the Palatine Hill. (Author’s Photos)

To get a rough idea of what the structure on the coin might have looked like we can compare to the nearby Temple of Hercules Victor which is better preserved and dates back to the late 2nd century BC.


Temple of Hercules Victor. This is the oldest marble building in Rome and is relatively well preserved thanks to it being converted to a church in the early medieval period. (Author's Photo)

The Provenance
This coin was part of the Prof Dr. Hildebrecht Hommel Collection (1899-1996) and was purchased from Hirsch Auction 63 in July of 1969. Dr. Hommel was a classical philologist at the University of Tubingen.

As such I was very interested to see that Dr. Hommel used a scrap piece of paper to write out his tag for this coin. Judging by the words that can still be seen on the tag I think this was some type of philological work regarding Euripides’ play Medea. I can make out the following.

• [Sty]chomythien – An ancient technique where sequences of lines are given to alternating characters.
• Handeln – German for “Act”
• Medeia – The protagonist of Euripides play

I did some searching through some of Dr. Hommel’s work that is available online but couldn’t find a document this might have been taken from. Still interesting… at least to me.


Tag from the Hildebretcht Hommel Collection


Unidentified tag. Does anyone recognize this tag? It is handwritten and looks like it could be fairly old. It mentions Hirsch so that could mean that this coin was sold by Hirsch multiple times or it could be a tag that post-dates the 1969 sale.


Hirsch 63 Aution Catalogue

Please Pile on
Please post your...

• Q Cassius Longinus Denarii
• Coins from the allies of Caesar
• Republican coins with great provenances
• Temple of Vesta coins
• Coins related to the Vestal Virgins
• Coins related to voting
• Anything else you think is relavant!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A beautiful example, @Curtisimo! And a wonderful write-up. Many of the ones I've seen have the "figure" on top of the temple missing or cut off. It's a type that's definitely on my want list -- I've seen some very nice specimens, but they would have cost a bit more than I wanted to spend.

I'll post a few relevant coins later, but here's a question: why do the catalogs always seem to refer to an unidentified "figure" atop the temple? If it's the temple of Vesta, why not just say it's Vesta? Is there some doubt?

 

Four coins that I think are relevant. I've left in the footnotes; as usual, my apologies in advance for their length.

1. Here's a denarius issued by Q. Cassius Longinus -- presumably the same individual, given that it was also apparently issued in 55 BCE -- that has nothing to do with Vestal Virgins or with voting. Note that the authorities state that at least at the time he was moneyer, Q. Cassius Longinus was known to be a supporter of Pompey. Perhaps he became an adherent of Caesar later, after the Civil War began? After all, in 55 BCE the First Triumvirate was still in effect, and Crassus's death at Carrhae was still a couple of years in the future.

Roman Republic, Q. Cassius Longinus, AR Denarius, 55 BCE [Crawford] or 53 BCE [Harlan], Rome Mint. Obv. Young male head of Genius Populi Romani [Crawford & RCV] or Bonus Eventus [RSC & RRM II] right, with flowing hair, scepter behind, border of dots / Rev. Eagle, with wings spread, standing right on thunderbolt, lituus [curved augural staff used in reading auspices] to left and capis [jug used in same rituals] to right, border of dots; Q • CASSIVS in exergue. Crawford 428/3, RSC I Cassia 7 (ill.), Sydenham 916, Sear RCV I 391 (ill.), Harlan, RRM II Ch. 23 at pp. 180-187, BMCRR Rome 3868. 19 mm., 3.77 g., 6 h.*



* According to Crawford (Vol. I at p. 452), the eagle, lituus, and capis together symbolized imperium. He suggests that they refer to the Lex Cassia of 104 BCE, introduced by L. Cassius Longinus, under which individuals who had been deprived of imperium by popular vote, or had been convicted of a crime in a popular assembly, were excluded from the Senate. This coin is also discussed in Roberta Stewart, The Jug and Lituus on Roman Republican Coin Types: Ritual Symbols and Political Power, in Phoenix Vol. 51, No. 2 (Summer, 1997), pp. 170-189 at pp. 181-182 (DOI: 10.2307/1088493, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1088493). The author notes that the eagle and thunderbolt were “auspical signs associated with Jupiter, the god of the auspices,” and that both moneyers in 55 BCE were adherents of Pompey, “whose position in 56-55 was problematical.” Thus, the coin’s allusion to these traditional symbols of political power -- reading auspices was a predicate to the conduct of public business -- “identif[ied] Pompey’s desire for political and military prestige with the political and religious values of Rome.”

2. Here's a denarius that does relate to Vesta and to voting, from a different Cassius Longinus (Lucius, the brother of Caesar's assassin Gaius Cassius Longinus) -- I don't know how they were related to Quintus.

Roman Republic, L. Cassius Longinus, AR Denarius, 63 or 60 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Veiled and diademed head of Vesta left, control-letter “A” before her, kylix (two-handled cup) behind her / Rev. Togate figure standing left, dropping a voting tablet favorable to proposed legislation, inscribed “V” (Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”]) into a cista before him, LONGIN III•V downwards behind him. Crawford 413/1, RSC I Cassia 10 (ill.), Sear RCV I 364 (ill.), Sydenham 935, Harlan, RRM II Ch. 6 at pp.49-53, BMCRR 3929 (control-letter “A”); see also id. 3930-3936 (other control letters). 3.96 g., 19 mm., 6 h. Formerly in NGC slab, Cert. No.4280866-009, Graded Ch. XF, Strike: 4/5, Surface 4/5.)*



*Crawford & RSC date the coin to 63 BCE, Harlan dates it to 60 BCE based on hoard evidence (see Ch. 6 at p. 49), and Sear notes the different dates but offers no opinion (see Sear RCV I at p. 141).

Crawford identifies the moneyer as the L. [Lucius] Cassius Longinus who was proconsul in 48 BCE (see Vol. I p. 440), and was the brother of Gaius Cassius Longinus, Caesar’s assassin. Harlan argues against this identification on the ground that the assassin’s brother would have been too young (in his early 20s) to be the moneyer of this coin, and concludes that the moneyer was someone otherwise unknown. (See pp. 50-51.)

Regardless of the specific identity of the moneyer, all authorities note that he omitted express mention of his nomen, Cassius (from the gens Cassia), and his praenomen, L. (for Lucius) from the coin, mentioning only his cognomen, Longinus, on the reverse. He was the only Republican moneyer from the gens Cassia to do so. Instead, he disclosed his praenomen and nomen by means of the control-letters on the obverse: the only control-letters used spell out his praenomen and nomen, as L CASSI (with one S reversed). See Sear RCV I at p. 141, Crawford at p. 440, Harlan at pp. 49-50. (See Crawford 362/1 at p. 377 for a discussion of the other known example of a moneyer spelling out his name via control-letters, the denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus). Harlan suggests that this moneyer’s reason for omitting his praenomen and nomen from the coin may have been to avoid confusion with another Lucius Cassius Longinus, praetor in 66 BCE, who had been condemned as a participant in the so-called Catiline conspiracy, exposed in 63 BCE, only two years earlier (according to Harlan’s dating of the coin). See Harlan at p. 50.

The “III•V” at the end of the reverse inscription stands for “IIIVIR” or triumvir. See the Numiswiki entry for IIIVIR, at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR: “On coins of the Roman Republic IIIVIR is used as a shortened abbreviation for IIIVIR AAAFF, which abbreviates "III viri aere argento auro flando feiundo" or "Three men for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold," a moneyer or mint magistrate.”

The veiled depiction on the obverse of this coin is generally taken to be a portrayal of Vesta despite the absence of an inscription to that effect. Note the kylix cup behind her head, similar to the bowl in Vesta’s hands on Crawford 512/2, as well as the similarity of the portrait to the specifically identified portrait of a veiled Vesta on Crawford 428/1, issued by Quintus Cassius Longinus in 53 BCE -- also with a voting scene on the reverse. (But see the equally similar veiled portrait specifically identified as Concordia on a denarius issued by Lepius Paullus in 62 BCE, Crawford 415/1.)

Crawford assumes without discussion that the obverse portrait depicts Vesta, and concludes that her portrayal on the obverse, taken together with the voting scene on the reverse, constitute a reference to the election in 113 BCE of another member of the Cassius gens, Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as a special prosecutor to retry two acquitted Vestal Virgins (one of the three originally charged was convicted the first time) on allegations of breaking their vows. They were convicted on retrial and buried alive as punishment. See Crawford p. 440; Harlan at p. 182-183 (discussing the voting scene on the reverse of Crawford 428/1).

In BMCRR, on the other hand, Grueber concluded that the reverse type commemorated the passage in 137 BCE of the Lex Cassia tabelleria, proposed by the same Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as tribune of the plebs, to curb the power of the nobility by expanding the recently-instituted secret ballot law to trials held before the people. (See BMCRR Vol. I p. 494.) If one thing is clear, it is that unlike Crawford 328/1, the reverse of this coin cannot refer to the retrial of the Vestal Virgins itself, since the scene on this reverse depicts a legislative vote (determined by votes of Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”] or Antiquo [= “I vote against it”]), rather than a trial, as depicted on the reverse of Crawford 328/1 (determined by votes of Absolvo [= “I absolve”] or Condemno [= “I acquit”]).

Harlan adopts neither view, arguing as follows (see pp. 52-53):

“We should ask if we want to assign this depiction of voting to the passage of one specific law. By the time this coin was minted it was not the specifics of Longinus’ law that people recalled, but that voting tablet laws represented the liberation of the people from the oppression of the nobility [Quotation from Cicero’s speech Pro Sestio, concerning the voting tablet law of 137 BCE, omitted.] . . . . Our moneyer’s coin reminded the people how his family had traditionally championed the people’s interests over the nobility’s and how their interests have been furthered through constitutional means rather than violent revolution which threatens the interest of all citizens. The recent involvement of a Cassius Longinus in Cataline’s attempt to effect change through violent revolution was not representative of the true values of the Cassii Longini.”

3. Here's another Republican denarius depicting Vesta, that neither relates to voting nor was issued by a Cassius Longinus:

Roman Republic, P. [Publius] Sulpicius Galba, AR Denarius, 69 BCE. Obv. Veiled head of Vesta right, S•C• [Senatus consulto] downwards behind / Rev. Sacrificial implements (Long knife [secespita], short-handled simpulum or culullus,* and single-bladed axe [securis] ornamented with lion’s head, left to right), AE in left field, CVR in right field [together = Aedilis Curulis]; in exergue, P•GALB.** Crawford 406/1, RSC I [Babelon] Sulpicia 7, Sear RCV I 345, BMCRR 3517, Harlan, RRM I Ch. 28 at pp. 160-163 [Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (2012)], Sydenham 839, RBW Collection 1454.*** 18 mm., 3.97 g. Purchased from Kölner Münzkabinett, April 2021; ex. Fritz Rudolf Künker GmbH & Co. KG, Auction 347, Lot 918, March 22, 2021. (With 19th-Century handwritten French-language coin ticket, citing Babelon Sulpicia 6[bearing the reverse legend AED-CVR] on one side, and Babelon Sulpicia 7[this coin, bearing the reverse legend AE-CVR] on the other.)[Double die match to http://numismatics.org/archives/ark:/53695/schaefer.rrdp.b06#schaefer.rrdp.b06_0214 , Binder 06, p. 165.1, Col. 3, Row 4, No. 444.]




* “Culullus: The Culullus is a horn-shaped vessel like the rhython held aloft by the Penates, holding milk or wine. This was an emblem of the Vestales Virgines as well as of the pontifices.” https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Culullus. But see Jones, John Melville, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, London 1990) (entry for “Culillus or culullus” at pp. 78-79): “This is said to have been the name of a drinking cup used in religious ceremonies by the Roman pontifices and Vestal Virgins. For this reason the digger or scoop which appears on the reverse of a denarius of P. Sulpicius Galba issued in 69 BC, with a head of Vesta on the obverse, has been identified as a culillus. It seems, however, to be only a simpulum, perhaps with a slightly shorter handle than usual.” See also Jones, entry for “Simpulum” at p. 290: “the name for a ladle made of earthenware which was one of the traditional implements of the pontifices at Rome. It should be distinguished from a culullus, which was a drinking vessel.”

**The moneyer is known to have been “appointed one of the judges in the trial against Verres in B.C. 70 [for extortion and corruption as provincial governor of Sicily, prosecuted by Cicero; see https://www.famous-trials.com/gaius-verres] but was rejected by Verres on account of his reputation for severity. He was an unsuccessful candidate for the consulship in B.C. 63, and he is mentioned as pontifex in B.C. 57, and augur in B.C. 49.” (BMCRR Vol. I at p. 433 n. 1.) See also Harlan, RRM I at 160 (quoting Cicero’s characterization of Sulpicius Galba, in a letter to his brother Atticus in July 65 BCE, as “sobrius et sanctus”). Crawford states at Vol. I p. 418 that the moneyer was already a pontifex (i.e., a member of the senior college of priests) at the time of his term as moneyer in 69 BCE -- as is demonstrated by the head of Vesta on the obverse of this coin (given that the pontiffs had oversight of the ceremonies of Vesta; see Harlan, RRM I at p. 161), as well as the depiction of sacrificial implements on the reverse.

The moneyer’s position as curule aedile in 69 BCE, expressly mentioned in the coin’s reverse legend (AE - CVR), was separate from his status as a pontifex. There were two curule aediles -- i.e., patrician aediles entitled to use the sella curulis (curule chair) -- at any given time in Rome. They were the magistrates charged with “the general administration of the city and its buildings and the organizing of public games and spectacles.” (See Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins, supra, entry for “Aedile” at p. 5.) See also the NumisWiki entry for “Aediles Curules,” from Stevenson’s A Dictionary of Roman Coins (1889), at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Aediles Curules: “To the curule ediles were entrusted the care of the sacred edifices (especially the temple of Jupiter), the tribunals of justice, the city walls, and the theatres; in short, all that was essential to the religion, defence, and embellishment of the city, came under their cognizance.” According to Harlan (RRM I at p. 163), this coin represents “the first time under the Sullan constitution that an aedile minted” as moneyer. The specific special purpose for the Senate’s authorization of this issue (as signified by the “S•C” on the obverse) is unknown, although Harlan suggests (id.) that the purpose may have been related to the need to purchase extra grain from Sicily to alleviate the severe grain shortages during that period, exacerbated by Verres’s peculations as provincial governor. Cf. the Stevenson entry on Aediles Curules quoted in NumisWiki at the link above, citing various coin issues expressly depicting corn ears, and noting that “[t]he addition of EX. S. C. denotes that those Curule Ediles purchased wheat for the supply of the Roman population, with the public money, by authority of the Senate.”

***The coin pictured as RBW Collection 1454 (at p. 301 of the book) is actually the same type as this coin ([RSC I] Babelon Sulpicia 7, bearing the reverse legend AE - CVR), even though the book’s text (at p. 300) erroneously identifies it as [RSC I] Babelon Sulpicia 6, mistakenly characterizing it as bearing the reverse legend AED-CVR. (Both types have the same Crawford number, namely 406/1.) The RBW Collection coin was sold by Numismatic Ars Classica (NAC) with that erroneous identification on May 17, 2012. Interestingly, NAC proceeded to sell at least two other Sulpicius Galba AE-CVR examples in 2015, and another in 2016, all with the exact same erroneous identification as purportedly bearing the AED-CVR legend.

4. Finally, another coin relating to voting, from considerably earlier than the others:

Roman Republic, P. Nerva, AR Denarius, Rome Mint, 113-112 BCE. Obv: Bust of Roma left wearing crested helmet with feather or aigrette (instead of wing) and single-drop earring, holding shield (ornamented with image of horseman galloping) against left shoulder with left hand, and spear over right shoulder with right hand, crescent moon above, star (*) [= monogrammed XVI; mark of value] before; behind, ROMA upwards / Rev. Voting scene inside Comitium in Forum: one togate voter to left of pons [bridge/walkway to place for depositing ballot tablet] receives ballot from attendant below; another togate voter to right of pons drops ballot in cista (voting basket); two lines behind voting scene and bar near top of reverse (described as “screen” by Sear) mark off voting area (denoting the barrier dividing a given tribe’s enclosure [saepta] from those allotted to different tribes), with bar or screen surmounted by marker/tabella inscribed with the initial “P” (possibly representing a particular voting tribe); P • NERVA [NE ligate] across field beneath bar (or beneath top of screen per Sear). Crawford 292/1; BMCRR II Italy 526 (at p. 274); RSC I [Babelon] Licinia 7 (ill.); Sear RCV I 169 (ill.); Sydenham 548; Yarrow 4.40 at p. 195 (ill.) [Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)]. 17.21 mm., 3.87 g., 7 h. David R. Sear Certificate of Authenticity, May 2, 2013, No. 811CY/RR/A/CR (issued to Steve Peterson, noting “flan flaw on edge of reverse not affecting the type”).* Purchased at JAZ Numismatics Auction # 186, Lot 4, June 2021; ex. J.B. DePew Collection; ex. Steve Peterson Collection; ex. CNG Auction 295, Jan. 30, 2013, Lot 361; ex. Bruce R. Brace Collection.**



*David Sear describes this issue as “[o]ne of the most celebrated types of the entire Republican coinage,” depicting “the actual voting process in the political assembly of the Roman People in the Comitium, where citizens voted on business presented to them by magistrates. The area occupied by the Comitium was consecrated ground, like a temple, and was located in front of the Senate House [Curia] in the forum.” Sear RCV I at p. 105; see also Sear Certificate; Jones, John Melville, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, London, 1990), entry for “Comitium” at p. 64: “From coire, ‘go together,’ the name of the area on the edge of the Forum at Rome which was used as a place of public assembly and where elections took place (the plural, comitia, was used as the name of the assemblies which were held there). A denarius of 113-[11]2 BC [this issue] shows a voting scened in the Comitium, with a voter crossing a narrow walkway, the pons, to cast his vote without being observed.” See also the Sear Certificate, explaining that “[t]he pons was a bridge in the Comitium which voters had to cross in order to cast their ballots and it kept them from any potential interference”; Crawford p. 307 (“it is not clear what the purpose of the pons was if not to isolate the voters”).

The standard view of the “P” on the marker or tablet surmounting the barrier or screen is that it represents the initial of a particular voting tribe. See Crawford Vol. I p. 307. For a different opinion, see E.E. Clain-Stefanelli, Life in Republican Rome on its Coinage (1999) at p. 16: “above to the right is a tablet inscribed with a P (provoco -- I appeal),” referring to the right of appeal in criminal proceedings; accord BMCRR II Italy p. 275 n. 2. Prof. Yarrow has yet a still different opinion: see Sec. 4.41 of her book at pp. 193-194, stating that electoral ballots as depicted on the Republican coinage (as opposed to ballots in criminal proceedings) “seem[] to be hinged-like representations of wax-writing tablets; one side of the tablet is inscribed with a P and the other has the initials (or space for the initials) of the candidate [citing, inter alia, the illustration of this coin at Fig. 4.40]. The P may resolve as pro, in the sense of a vote ‘for’ or ‘in support of’ the named candidate.” (This explanation may account for the fact that on less worn examples, the open “P” on the rectangular tablet or marker seems to be to the far left, with the remainder blank.)

The moneyer is “presumably” Publius Licinius Nerva, Praetor in Sicily (i.e., its governor] in 104/103 BCE at the time of the Second Servile War. See Crawford I. p. 306; Sear Certificate; BMCRR II Italy p. 274 n. 2. The Sear Certificate states that “[t]he reason for Nerva’s selection of this type is not easy to establish, though it may refer back to a measure concerning enfranchisement carried by an ancestor of the moneyer’s as well as being a more contemporary reference to the Marian law of 119 BC by which the width of the pons was narrowed.” Crawford prefers the Marian explanation; see Vol I p. 307.

** Bruce R. Brace "was a scholar and by many considered to be a dean of Roman Numismatics in Canada. Coins from his extensive collection were sold by CNG in 2012 and 2013." https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/an..._ex_bruce_r_brace_library/630746/Default.aspx . According to Google, he was the former General Chairman of the Canadian Numismatic Association, the recipient of their J.D. Ferguson Award in 1984, and the former honorary curator of the McMaster University Museum of Art coin collection, at least a portion of which is now known as the Bruce R. Brace Coin Collection.

 

As usual another in depth fantastic write up and great coin to underpin, you have my undivided attention. That temple is probably one of the most talked about in the forum, congrats on a superb pick up.
Q.Cassius LonginusDenarius 55 BC Bust of Vesta right, temple of Vesta, 19mm, 3.14gm. Crawford 428/1.
And Nero rebuilt version.

NeroNero, AR Denarius Temple of Vesta, 65-66 AD, RIC 62, 3.17gm.
Banker's mark on reverse.
And the Temple as it stands today, Julia Domna time
Julia Domna. Augusta, AD 193-217Julia Domna. Augusta, AD 193-217. Æ As (26mm, 10.65 g, 5h). Rome mint. Struck under Caracalla, circa AD 214. Diademed and draped bust right / Four Vestal Virgins sacrificing over altar in front of the Temple of Vesta. RIC IV 607a (Caracalla). Dark brown patina, some roughness. Near VF. Very rare.

 

Mine is fourree and has never been satisfactory to me for the simple reason that it has only the faintest trace of the A on the tablet. This is a coin type that really takes a hit in desirability when it gets a little wear. I have never found one in my price bracket that has the AC.

 

Stunning new coin and a wonderful write up... as always Thanks
But you forgot the fifth part/reason why That coin is so saweet... that toning
On the other side of history in 55 bce Pompey's folks were all:

A. Plautius, 55 BCE, AR denarius. Rome, 3.23g, 19mm.
Obv: A•PLAVTIVS AED•CVR•S•C; Turreted head of Cybele right
Rev: IVDAEVS / BACCHIVS; Bacchius Judaeus (Aristobulus II, High Priest and King of Judaea) kneeling right, holding reins of camel standing to right behind, and offering up olive branch. Crawford 431/1
Ex: Savoca
Plautius was a supporter of Pompey, and the reverse type refers to the latter’s victories in the east. The obverse refers to the Ludi Megalenses, games hosted by the curule aediles.

 

Lovely denarius and OUTSTANDING write-up, @Curtisimo! What an interesting provenance, too!



Here's my Temple of Vesta. It's not exactly FDC, but I'm not exactly Clio!


Julia Domna, AD 193-217.
Roman Æ as, 9.85 g, 25 mm.
Rome, AD 214.
Obv: IVLIA PIA FELIX AVG, diademed and draped bust, right.
Rev: VESTA SC, Temple of Vesta with four Vestals in scene of sacrifice; lighted altar in center.
Refs: RIC 607; BMCRE 232-33; Cohen 234; RCV 7137.

 

Thank you Donna! As to your question I thought about it and looked to see if I could find a clear depiction of Vesta. The only piece of art I found that seems to clearly show Vesta with a patera and scepter is this votive offering in the Altes Museum.



Though I must say that I have never seen a depiction nor read about a case where a cult statue to a god or goddess was located outside the temple. The point of the temple itself is meant to be the house of the god(dess) so it would be a bit strange to place the cult object on a roof. I would think the fire itself would be considered the embodiment of the goddess with no need for a statue. There were lots of statues of Vestal Virgins at the site when I visited so perhaps it is meant to depict one of them... perhaps even Rhea Silvia? She was a Vestal of a royal line so the patera and scepter would both make sense.

I honestly don’t know but it’s an interesting question.

I think that P Nerva denarius is my favorite coin from your collection that I have seen. It’s a wonderful coin with a great subject and eye appeal. I am jealous! I got blown out on a bid for this type recently. Ah well, eventually I’ll land a nice one.

Thanks for the additions!

I was hoping you would stop by my friend! Wonderful additions! I knew if anyone was able to show the temple at different times it would be you.

Feel free to add any further Republican architecture as well my friend.

I see no reason to think less of your tabella for lacking the A and C. It’s a nice style coin and I imagine it was extremely convincing before time and wear revealed its deception.

Plus mine is also worn at the tabella and I consoled myself with thinking that the juror referenced on my coin just wanted to vote “I don’t know.”

You’re too kind my friend. I was very pleased with the toning. In hand the coin is a bit darker than my photos show so the toning stands out even more.

I love that Team Pompey RR! What a cool reference to Judea as well. There is so much cool history in these late Republican coins.

That would be an impressive coin no matter whose collection it was in. I really like these action scenes set with a background. It’s such an ambitious artistic vision to execute on such a small work space. Great addition and thank you for the kind words!

 

Beautiful coins and write up sir. Sorry my republican denarii are very boring by comparison, but I still like them.

We have M. Servilius (~100BC) with the battle and Gragulus (135BC) with the horses and rider.



And I am embarrassed to say... this one is MIA. I know I know I feel incredibly guilty about it. Like my one job as collector is to make sure these coins get to the next generation unharmed. Hope it turns up, Plaetorius 36BC I think it was.

 

I'm more and more seriously considering to hiring you for my writeups @Curtisimo !

A coin related to voting


L. Cassius Longinus, Denarius - Rome mint, 63 BC
Veiled bust of Vesta left. Control mark L below chin
LONGIN IIIV, togate citizen standing left, voting
3.93 gr
Ref : RCV # 364, RSC, Cassia # 10, Crawford # 413/1, Sydenham # 935

Q

 

Great write-ups and wonderful coins! It would be great to gather @Curtisimo and @DonnaML writeups on RR in a folder!

 

Great coin with a splendid provenance, @Curtisimo !

I have several ex-Hommel coins myself, which isn't too surprising. Hildebrecht Hommel owned one of the most substantial private numismatic collections, encompassing about 8.000 Roman coins and including an allegedly complete set of Republican denarii. He had inherited part of his collection from his father, the well-known German Orientalist Fritz Hommel (1854-1936) and added to it extensively. The fact that multiple generations worked on it sometimes makes it difficult to understand the tickets that come with coins from the Hommel collection. Below are some examples.

This coin was bought by Hildebrecht Hommel from Peus in 1973:

Roman Republic, moneyer: Q. Caecilius Metellus Balearicus, AR denarius, 130 BC, Rome mint. Obv: Q·METE (ligated); head of Roma, helmeted, r.; before, crossed X. Rev: ROMA; Jupiter in quadriga, r., holding reins and thunderbolt in l. hand and branch in r. hand. 20mm, 3.87g. RRC 256/1. Ex Peus, Lagerliste 26, lot 99 (1973); ex Hommel collection; ex Kölner Münzkabinett.

It came with two old tickets. The ticket on the left is Hildebrecht Hommel's own. The one on the right is younger and was written by somebody else. At some point, Hildebrecht Hommel had his Republican collection reorganized. For this occasion, these characteristic red and black tickets were written by a number of different people (maybe Hommel's research assistants at Tübingen?):


My second coin, on the other hand, was already owned by Hildebrecht's father Fritz Hommel:

Roman Republic, moneyer: M. Caecilius Metellus, AR denarius, 127 BC, Rome mint. Obv: ROMA; head of Roma, helmeted, r.; before, X. Rev: M·METELLVS·Q·F; Macedonian shield decorated with elephant's head. 18mm, 3.83g. RRC 263/1a. Ex Hommel collection, ex Kölner Münzkabinett.

According to Fritz Hommel's ticket, which is niftily fashioned from an old postal envelope, he acquired this coin from a certain Lennox in a swap on Dec. 4, 1911. I have no idea who Lennox was:


In addition, the coin also came with a second, younger ticket that was apparently made for Hildebrecht Hommel:

 

Excellent sholarship worthy of a Classicist!

 

Excellent sholarship worthy of a Classicist!

 

Don’t sell your coins short my friend. That M. Servilius is as interesting a type as any struck during the Republic. There is a fascinating story there.

And I wouldn’t sell your Dioscuri reverse short either. That is an iconic type despite being the most common and every RR collection needs at least one example. In fact, my favorite Republican coin shares the same design.


Roman Republic
Second Punic War (218 – 201 BC)
Anonymous AR Denarius, Rome Mint, struck ca. 211 BC
Wt.: 4.2 g
Dia.: 20 mm
Obv.: Helmeted head of Roma right. X in left field
Rev.: Dioscuri galloping right. ROMA in exergue and partially incuse on raised tablet
Ref.: Crawford 44/5 Brinkman Group 5. Sydenham 167. RBW 169.
Ex Numismatic Ars Classica Auction 100 Part II, Lot 1368 (May 30, 2017)

You are too kind my friend! That is a great voting scene denarius from another member of the gens Cassia. Great addition. Thanks for sharing!

This is a great post! Thank you for the additional information. This helps make more sense of the tickets. Dr. Hommel had help cataloging his collection at some point and the second ticket with the cut-out at the top is the result. At first I thought it could be a Hirsch ticket from the 1969 sale but the numbers at the top right didn’t match the catalog. It looks like the numbers were part of Hommel’s organizational system.

This leads me to another question though... what happened to the collection after his passing? Did he bequeath it to his University? If so the tickets could be from the University also.

Thank you Kevin! I appreciate the kind words.

 

As far as I know, the Hommel collection was first divided in 1977, when Hildebrecht Hommel gave his Greek collection (some 4.000 coins) to the University of Tübingen. It formed the basis of Tübingen's numismatic teaching and research collection, still remains at the university, and is published in SNG Tübingen (6 volumes).

The Roman collection (some 8.000 coins) remained Hildebrecht Hommel's private property. When Hommel passed in 1996, it went to his heirs. In 2018, the Roman collection was sold, mainly through the firm Busso Peuss (in auction 422). The auction catalogue is still online on the Peus website.

 

You’re a gentleman and a scholar @Orielensis . Thank you for the info.

 

Very nice - here's mine of the type:



ATB,
Aidan.

 

As usual, Curtis, an enlightening and entertaining thread! Here's my L Censorinus denarius with the Hommel Collection tags it came with.


ROMAN REPUBLIC
AR Denarius. 3.89g, 17mm. Rome mint, 82 BC. L. Marcius Censorinus, moneyer. Crawford 363/1d; Sydenham 737. O: Laureate head of Apollo right. R: Marsyas standing left, holding wineskin over shoulder; to right, column surmounted by statue of Minerva(?) standing left; L • CENSOR down left.
Ex Prof Dr Hildebrecht Hommel Collection

The smaller one seems to be in the same handwriting as the older tag that came with @Orielensis's Caecilius Metellus denarius, so perhaps this too came from Fritz Hommel's collection.

 

I've shown that before, but think it belongs in here too

From my secret Saturn last year I received, among others, the following antoninianus with a very old provenance, considering it's a modest coin, where you usually expect pedigrees to be related to the rare and/or prestigious ones. Never have I encountered an obscure, modest and plebeian coin with a provenance going back as far as 1849 (at least) !
It's a Tetricus II antoninianus with its original holder, from the Netherlands National collections, stating it has been in the "old cabinet" (i.e. pre 1849, when the two main collections merged) since.








Q