All 7 entries tagged Mark Antony
No other Warwick Blogs use the tag Mark Antony on entries | View entries tagged Mark Antony at Technorati | There are no images tagged Mark Antony on this blog
August 01, 2018
Fig. 1. Antony, Cisalpine Gaul, Silver Quinarius, c. 43-42 BC, RRC 489/6. (Image © the Trustees of the British Museum).
This is a Roman Republican silver quinarius, dated to 43-42 BC, believed to have been minted in Cisalpine Gaul, and is currently held by the British Museum. It was issued by Mark Antony and its iconography is similar to another coin type referring to Lugdunum.
The reverse of the coin carries the legend “ANTONI IMP XLI”, and this, together with the walking lion provide personal references to Antony. XLI (41) refers to his age, and the lion, a recurrent iconographic emblem on Antony’s coinage, may represent the claim that the Antonii were descendants of Hercules (see Plutarch, Life of Antony, 4.1). Plutarch states that Antony believed his physical attributes confirmed this heroic descent, choosing also to attire himself in a manner suggestive of Hercules. Such self-representation would have offered a counter-claim to that of the Julian family’s divine descent from Venus via Aeneas. Plutarch also states that Antony’s excesses ran to excursions in chariots drawn by lions, and this is also attested to by Pliny (Natural History 8.21) who asserts he was the first man to harness lions to his chariot in Rome. Therefore, the depiction of the lion can be read as a means to promote and emphasise both his physical strength and prowess, and also to accentuate his alleged ancestry.
The obverse has a border of dots and an anti-clockwise inscription of III.VIR.R.P.C. which expands to III vir rei publicae constituendae consulari potestate (triumvir for confirming the Republic with consular power) and refers to the second triumvirate formed by Antony, Octavian and Lepidus in 43 BC.
The portrait bust on the obverse is a personification of Victory, signified by the wings at the base of the neck, and convincing arguments exist to suggest that it is a portrayal of Antony’s wife Fulvia. This is partly due to the image’s facial features having more in common with contemporaneous lifelike portraiture than the classicism favoured for deities, and equally the hair is similar in style to what was fashionable at the time, with this particular hairstyle not being featured on other representations of female deities.
Fulvia is a fascinating, albeit not endearing, character. Antony, who she married in 47 or 46 BC, was her third husband – having previously been married to Publius Clodius Pulcher, then Gaius Scribonius Curio – and all three were supporters of Caesar. Literary sources indicate she was highly politically motivated, more so after Caesar’s death, purportedly to promote and protect Antony’s interests while he was in Gaul, becoming powerful and influential in the senate (see Cassius Dio, Roman History, 48.4-10, Appian, Civil Wars, 5.3.19). Appian relates that Fulvia was actively involved in the proscriptions of 43 BC (see Appian, Civil Wars 4.4.29) whilst Cassius Dio condemns her as responsible for many deaths to satisfy her greed for wealth and hatred of certain adversaries – in particular, he recounts her brutal treatment of Cicero’s decapitated head (Cassius Dio, Roman History, 47.8). She was also directly involved in, if not being the cause of the uprising by Antony’s brother Lucius, who was consul in 41 BC, which resulted in his defeat by Octavian at Perusia in Etruria in 40 BC. Fulvia then fled to Greece where she died, having been rebuked by Antony for her involvement in the debacle.
The significance of the amount of power Fulvia wielded is also evidenced by the city Eumenea in Phrygia being renamed Fulvia around 41 BC, where it is believed she was also honoured on coinage, again in the guise of Victory. Equally, as the competition for political dominance between Octavian and Antony is apparent in other coinage, the appearance of Fulvia may have been intended as an important advertisement to convey a widespread political message of strength and unity via their marriage and perhaps even suggesting some dynastic ambition.
It is interesting in comparison, that women connected to Augustus rarely featured in his coinage during the principate, and this may be resultant from a desire to disassociate himself from both Antony’s reputation of being ruled by women (see Plutarch, Antony 10) and his apparent penchant for utilising his wives’ images on coinage – Fulvia was followed by Octavia, whose image was not disguised by deific attributes, and then Cleopatra, who he is thought to have married around 37 BC, (although this marriage was not valid in Rome). Additionally, Augustus’ own personal experience of Fulvia, may also have been influential in his later social reforms and moral legislation in attempting to ensure a higher standard of behaviour for women and a return to more traditional domestic roles.
This month's coin was written by Jacqui Butler. Jacqui has just completed the first year of the MA in Ancient Visual and Material Culture (part time), having gained a BA in Classical Studies with the Open University last year. Her main interests lie in the visual depictions of both mythical and real women in Roman material culture, specifically in art, but also their representation in epigraphy on funerary monuments.
Bauman, R.A. (1994) Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London, Routledge).
Fraschetti, A. (2001) Roman Women (London, The University of Chicago Press). Kleiner, D.E.E (1992) “Politics and Gender in the Pictorial Propaganda of Antony and Octavian”, Echos du monde classique: Classical views, Volume XXXVI, n.s. 11, Number 3, 1992, pp. 357-367.
MacLachlan, B. (2013) Women in Ancient Rome, A Sourcebook (London, Bloomsbury Academic).
Rowan, C. (forthcoming) ANS/CUP Handbook to the Coinage of the Ancient World 49 BC – AD 14. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Wood, S.E. ( 2001) Imperial Women, A Study in Public Images, 40 BC – AD68 (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava, Supplementum 195).
April 01, 2017
Denarius of Mark Antony (RRC 545/1), 31 BC
Obverse: Bare head of Mark Antony, M·ANTONIVS·AVG·IMP·IIII·
Reverse: Victory standing left holding wreath tied with fillet in right hand
and palm-branch over left shoulder with left hand. Laurel-wreath as border. D·TVR
The battle of Actium in 31BC was the most important event in Augustus’ campaign of justification after assuming more power and influence than any other individual. This battle was the climactic clash between Augustus and Antony in 31 BC, in which the victor would gain control of the Roman world. We may be tempted to think of this battle as a symbol of the triumph of a military despotism, but Augustus used a multitude of methods to convince the Romans otherwise. But Augustus himself unwittingly confirmed his misdoings: the Res Gestae opens with brazen assertions of high treason and a cliché-ridden defamation of a consul of the republic. Augustus was therefore forced to cleverly exaggerate the extent of his victory by following a systematic denigration of Antony. The reason for Augustus’ campaign against his enemies was to debase their character and make their deposition seem as far from a power struggle as possible, hoping instead that he would appear as the bulwark against immoral and dangerous individuals for the Romans. This was a countermeasure to seeming as if he was declaring war on Antony for his own private interests. The Antony of Cicero, associated with prostitutes and corteges of actresses and often drunk is the foundation of Augustus’ Antony. This disparagement of Antony was important in denying monarchical claims to power, it characterised Antony as unsuitable for power and dangerous to the republic, which forced Augustus to champion the defence of the republic. This was similar to the character assassination of Sextus Pompey. Augustus branded Sextus as a pirate, rather than admit to engaging in civil war: ‘I pacified the sea from pirates ’ (Res Gestae 25), preferring to claim he acted out of compulsion and loyalty to the state.
Augustus confronted Rome with ‘the will which Antonius had left in Rome, naming his children by Cleopatra among his heirs, opened and read before the people ’ (Suetonius, Life of Augustus, 17). It allowed Augustus to reassert this status as the champion of the Roman people, however it is exceptionally pertinent to remember that Augustus’ extortion of the vestal virgins in procuring this will was something wholly illegal. Augustus juxtaposed himself and Antony through his mausoleum. Though completed in 28BC, it was important in the propaganda war: Augustus’ monumental tomb offered a demonstrative and public contrast to Antony’s alleged desires to be buried in Alexandria. This may have encouraged the Romans, in their indignation, to believe that the other reports in circulation were also true: if Antony should succeed, he would bestow their city upon Cleopatra and transfer the seat of power to Egypt.
Despite Augustus’ best efforts to brand Antony as traitor, Antony’s denarius of 31 BC shows a different story. The coin depicts Antony with a full list of titles, advertising his role as augur (AVG), imperator for the fourth time (IMP IIII), consul for the third time (COS TERT) and triumvir (III·VIR·R·P·C). This was an undeniable assertion that he was far from a foreign enemy, suggesting instead that Augustus’ behaviour was exceptionally anti-republican (to openly share such enmity with a fellow Roman would be a source of revilement). Antony’s use of a denarius is wily; it reaffirmed his legitimacy as a member of the Roman elite while suggesting Augustus’ lust for power as a man willing to enter into civil war for supremacy. The reverse features Victory standing left, a blatant reminder that it would be Victory who supported Antony. The denarius openly deconstructed Augustus’ campaign of invective and propaganda; it was a poignant reminder to the people of Rome that Antony was not the Eastern enemy he was made out to be.
This month's coin entry was written by Alfred Wrigley. Alfred is a third year Ancient History and Classical Archaeology student with a great research interest in Julio - Claudian numismatics
Image copyright Trustees of the British Museum (1855, 1118.3)
February 13, 2014
|Aureus showing Antony and his son Antyllus|
The problem of succession, and Augustus' means of communicating succession, form a key theme in the study of the Augustan principate. But the mechanisms for communicating succession and dynasty in the principate arose directly out of the Republic, in particular the strategies employed during the civil wars. We can see this in a gold aureus series struck for Mark Antony in 34 BC while he was triumvir in the East (RRC 541/1-2). The design of this series foreshadows how imperial dynasty and succession would later be communicated during the Roman Empire.
The coin issue consisted of two different types, but both of them carried the portrait of Mark Antony on the obverse and the portrait of his eldest son Marcus Antonius Antyllus on the reverse. Antyllus was the child of Antony and Fulvia, and was at one point engaged to Octavian's daughter Julia. His appearance on coinage here suggests that Antony may have been attempting to establish and advertise a successor, well before Augustus would later turn to the problem.
This is also suggested by the legends of these pieces. On the first type, the titles of Antony occupy both the obverse and reverse of the coin (M ANTONI M F M N AVG IMP TERT, COS ITER DESIG TERT III VIR R P C, Marcus Antonius, son of Marcus, grandson of Marcus, Augur, Imperator for the third time, consul for the second time, consul designate for the third time, triumvir for the establishment of the Republic). That Antony included the names of his father and grandfather must have been intentional: in contrast to Octavian's claims to be the son of the divine Caesar, Antony represents his descent in a traditional Roman manner, something which may have appealed to the Senate rather more than Octavian's claims. One the second type of this issue (shown above), Antony's titles are abbreviated and confined to the obverse of the coin, while the reverse carries the name of Marcus Antonius Antyllus, who is presented as the son of Antony (M ANTONIVS M F F). Thus over both types, Antony and his positions are communicated, as is Antony's ancestry and his successor, a presentation that is remarkably similar to what would occur later in the imperial period.
Coin image reproduced courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG (Auction 54, Lot 285)
January 24, 2014
|Coins of Sosius from Zacynthus|
Gaius Sosius, one of Mark Antony's generals, provides an excellent example of the role played by individuals other than the triumvirs in the civil wars at the end of the Republic. Sosius, who was governor of Syria and Cilicia in 38 BC and assisted in placing King Herod on the throne, was a staunch supporter of Antony, and was in a position of some power at Antony's naval base at Zacynthus. We know this because between 39 BC (when the base was founded) and 32 BC, a series of coins were struck under Sosius' authority (RPC 1 1290-3).
The obverse of the first two coins carries the portrait of Antony. The reverse of issue 1 bears a Ptolemaic eagle, a reference to Antony's alliance with Cleopatra. The second issue, struck in 36 BC, names Sosius as imperator and carries a military trophy on the reverse, a reference to Sosius' victory in Judea. It is unusual that Sosius uses his coinage to advertise his own personal achievements rather than that of the triumvirs, though the portrait of Antony on the obverse underlines the fact that Sosius was acting under Antony's support and patronage.
|Temple of Apollo Sosianus|
The third issue carries the head of Apollo on the obverse, and a tripod on the reverse. Sosius is named as consul designate. The imagery is identical to the pre-Roman local coinage of the island, which had a famous cult to Apollo. But after his triumph in Rome in 34 BC (for his victories in Judea), Sosius vowed to rebuild the temple of Apollo in the Campus Martius, today known as the temple of Apollo Sosianus. The declaration that a supporter of Antony was rebuilding a temple to Apollo in Rome, soon after Octavian had vowed his famous Apolline temple on the Palatine, was a powerful statement. It may be that this third issue of Sosius references his building activities in Rome, and the Roman general adopted local iconography to communicate his message. The users of the coin may have seen either a reference to the local cult of Apollo and local coinage, or a broader reference to Sosius' activities, or both.
The fourth coin, which carries a head of Neptune on the obverse and a dolphin and trident on the reverse, was struck after Sosius had fled Rome early in his consulship in 32 BC, and references his position as a commander of Antony's fleet just before Actium. Although Sosius fled the capital only a few days or weeks into his consulship, the coin still names him as consul, indicating that both he and Antony believed he still held the position.
(Coin images reproduced from Bahrfehldt, JIAN 11 (1908), pl. XIII)
November 21, 2013
|Quinarius in the name of Antony, struck at Lugdunum|
In 43 BC Lucius Munatius Plancus founded the colony of Lugdunum, modern day Lyon. As was common practice in other Roman colonial foundations, coinage was struck to mark the occasion. For many colonies, this was the only time local coinage was minted: the Romans may have seen the provision of local coinage in this context as a necessity, not only to facilitate exchange, but to build a sense of common identity amongst disparate settlers. A local currency that bore imagery associated with the foundation could contribute to a sense of community. In the case of Lugdunum, the imagery selected demonstrates the Roman awareness of the different currencies in the regions under their control.
Two silver quinarii coins were struck in 43-42 BC in connection with the founding of the colony. One was issued in the name of the colony, and the other bearing the titles of the triumvir Mark Antony (Plancus was a supporter of Antony until Antony's failed campaign against the Parthians). The obverse of these coins bore an image of Victory, while the reverse displayed a lion. The choice of the rare quinarius denomination, and the iconography, must have been in deference to the local traditions of currency within the region: small silver coinage was used more often in Gaul than in Rome, and the iconography of the lion refers to one of the most common currencies in the region before the Roman conquest: the coinage of Massalia (modern day Marseilles). The particular way Victory is represented on the obverse of the coin series (with her wings coming up at either side of her bust) may also reference Massalian coinage, which shows Artemis with a bow and quiver in a similar fashion.
|Coin of Massalia showing Artemis and lion|
That a series was struck in the name of Antony, and another in the name of Lugdunum, demonstrates that in the Late Republic coin imagery did not always reflect contemporary political concerns. Rather here, and elsewhere, the Romans acknowledged and responded to local currencies. This would have made the acceptance of the currency amongst the existing population much easier, but the iconography of Massalia was transferred to the new colony of Lugdunum. In modern colonial situations, the continuation of a local currency is often an act of resistance against the new power (e.g. the persistence of cattle currency, or cowry shells), forcing the dominant power to react, often by tacitly allowing the old forms of currency to continue. We cannot know whether this was the case here, but the result is a coinage whose iconography simultaneously references Massalia, Lugdunum, and Roman power via Mark Antony. It is another example of the entangled nature of imagery and ideology that developed during the formation of the Roman Empire.
The reference to pre-existing local currency is also seen in the late Republican colonial foundation of Corinth, founded by Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Excavations at Corinth have revealed that a significant portion of the circulating small change in the city were the coins of Corinth struck before her destruction in 146 BC (how these coins reappeared in a colony founded more than 100 years later is an intriguing but perhaps unanswerable question). These types carried a trident on the obverse and pegasus on the reverse. The precise imagery was later struck by civic magistrates within the city, again probably in reference to the persistance of local monetary traditions. In both Lugdunum and Corinth, the numismatic imagery selected for the settlements referenced local traditions, although the settlers would have come from disparate geographical regions.
(Images reproduced courtesy of Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG (Auction 63, Lot 483), and Classical Numismatic Group Inc., (Electronic Auction 264, lot 1, www.cngcoins.com))
October 30, 2013
Sometimes in numismatics one needs to go beyond what is listed in a coin catalogue to discover more about the intentions or audience of a particular coin.This was the case this morning when working on a coin series struck just after Julius Caesar's assassination in 44BC, struck by the moneyer P. Sepullius Macer. Three coin issues were released by Macer showing a desultor, or person who leapt from one horse to another; the coins were probably struck in connection a festival held in this year, perhaps the Parilia.
Struck immediately after Caesar's assassination, this particular series has been seen as important evidence of the use of Caesar's memory by Mark Antony. The first in the series (Crawford 480/20, shown right) shows a laureate, veiled head of Julius Caesar, with the legend CAESAR PARENS PATRIAE. The desultor type is then combined with an obverse showing the planned temple to Caesar and his clemency (Crawford 480/21), and finally an obverse showing Mark Antony, veiled and sporting a beard as a sign of mourning (Crawford 480/22).
The traditional interpretation of the coins is that it demonstrates Antony's alignment with the murdered Caesar, since Julius Caesar is initially shown veiled on the coin series, only to be substituted by the veiled Mark Antony. But in trying to find examples of the coin showing the veiled head of Julius Caesar (Crawford 480/20), I soon discovered that there is only one specimen in Paris, and none of the other major numismatic collections (ANS, British Museum), appear to have a specimen of this particular coin. The specimen in Paris, and illustrated by Crawford in his plates, may be the only example known. Given this, one is forced to wonder whether the coin was in fact a mistake or minting error: an accidental combination of the obverse die showing Julius Caesar from one of Macer's other coin issues (e.g. Crawford 480/19), with the new reverse commemorating the games of the Parilia. If it was a mistake perhaps only a few coins were struck before the error was realised, and the desultor type was combined with its 'intended' obverses. If the theory is correct, we should change how we view this particular issue, and the desultor series more generally.
If anyone does know of other examples of Crawford 480/20, I would be grateful for any information!!
(Coin above reproduced courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group Inc., (Auction 190, lot 1395) (www.cngcoins.com)
May 17, 2013
|Coin of New Carthage imitating an earlier coin of Mark Antony|
The coinage of Carthago Nova in Spain (modern day Rio Tinto) during the Roman Republic is unusual to modern eyes since they rarely have a portrait on the obverse of the coin. That is, there is no 'heads'. The coins also sometimes imitate the silver coinage struck by the Roman Republic (see for example RPC 1 151). One example of particular interest is the coin pictured right (RPC 1 155). While the legend on the coin gives the names of the local individuals responsible for the issue (L. Appuleius Rufus and C. Maecius), the imagery on the coin is taken directly from a famous coin series of Mark Antony.
Before the battle of Actium, Mark Antony struck an enormous series of coins, showing a ship on one side and an aquila (military standard) on the other (see image). This series, known as Antony's 'legionary denarii', are found in almost every corner of the Roman world, well after other Republican coinage disappeared. Indeed, Antony's coins are still found in hoards in the third century AD (some 200 years after they were initially struck). The longevity of Antony's coins is likely due to the fact that there were produced with a slightly less than pure metal content (meaning that they were not melted down or hoarded alongside other coins of purer silver). The result was, ironically, that Antony's coins circulated much longer than the coins of Octavian. Why Octavian didn't destroy these coins after Antony's defeat is a difficult question, but because of their sheer number and impure metal content, it may have been easier for Octavian to use the coins rather than melt them down.
Why the moneyers of Carthago Nova felt the need to adopt the numismatic iconography of a defeated Roman general is again a difficult question. But the moneyers were certainly not alone in their imitation; later on the emperor Marcus Aurelius would also reference and celebrate the coinage of Mark Antony (see image). Imitations of other triumviral numismatic imagery have a political context (for example, the adoption of Caesar's imagery by Hirtius in Gaul was likely meant to signify his support of the Caesarian cause). But here it may be that because Antony's coin type also did not have a 'heads' side per se, it appealed to Carthago Nova, since it fit in with their own numismatic tradition. By using the imagery of Mark Antony, and placing it alongside their own names on a local coin of Carthago Nova, the moneyers transformed the context and perhaps also the meaning of the image. Whatever associations the image may have had for users of this coinage, the imitation of 'Roman' iconography demonstrates that people were paying attention to what the Romans put on their coinage, as it increasingly became a vehicle for communication.
(Image above reproduced courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group (Mail Bid Sale 78, lot 1092). www.cngcoins.com).