Hello there,
I've posted one of my latest purchases on another board, but have not found an answer to my question as of yet. I was hoping, therefore, someone on this board might
help me. (What follows below is a extract of my post on another board.)
My question concerns this coin:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-165276The coin was struck around 32/31 BC and was
part of a wider series of coins bearing the
legend ‘
CAESAR DIVI F’, which of course refers to
Octavian’s heritage. This coin as well as the other coins send out a clear message that
Octavian is not only
Caesar’s heir, but also that
Octavian is destined to fulfill
Caesar’s promise for a stable, strong and unified empire. The various coins depict the
bare head of
Octavian to either left or right, and the various reverses show an
equestrian statue of
Octavian (refers to the battle of
Philippi),
Venus (
gens Iulia),
Victory,
Pax and my coin, Mercury (for the restoration of commerce and the arts). The volume and date of these coins (35 BC - 30 BC) is such, that it coincides with the large volume of
legionary coinage minted by
Marcus Antonius. Although the date of the coinage of
Octavian is debated, it however could provide a very interesting insight in the propaganda war between
Octavian and
Marcus Antonius and the
money generated by these two triumvirs to pay for the armies that were destined to do battle at
Actium.
A different description of the
reverse of this coin is also present (I found this in a description of a coin offered by an
auction house, in 2011, and the theory seems to be put forward by Prideaux). It revolves around the
reverse. The general
attribution holds that the figure on the
reverse is Mercury. The other view claims that the
reverse figure is not Mercury, but
Apollo. Mercury was the
Roman god of many things, amongst which were financial gain, commerce, eloquence, messages, communication. He is often depicted with a winged hat (
petasos), the
caduceus, and accompanied by a cockerel, ram or
goat and a tortoise. The latter animal refers to
his legendary invention of the
lyre from a tortoise shell.
Apollo has been recognized as a god of - amongst other things -
music, poetry, healing and diseases, truth and prophecy. He is often shown with a
lyre, or a
kithara (
lyre 2.0), a sword and the sacrificial tripod. The difference of interpretation concerns the question if the object carried on the back of the figure is either a winged hat (
petasos) or a
shield, and if the
lyre is a
lyre with a tortoise shell or a ‘
standard lyre’. The consequence of this interpretation is that, if the
reverse figure is
Apollo, the coin probably would have been minted after the battle of
Actium, instead of before. There are other
Roman republic coins depicting Mercury. See for example the
denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus, 82 BC. This depiction (
head of Mercury on the
obverse) clearly shows the
petasos and the
caduceus. The attributes are generally known and clearly, one can imagine that if the engraver would have been ordered to engrave Mercury, he would have added these attributes.
Denarii depicting
Apollo are of course also known. For example the
denarii of C.
Piso L.f. Frugi (67 BC) and P. Clodius M.f. Turrinus (42 BC). On these coins,
Apollo is shown with either longer hair and wearing a
taenia, or accompanied by a ‘
standard lyre’. If we were to follow the alternative theory, my coin would be post-Actium.
Apollo could then also stand for the fullfilment of the legacy of
Caesar and that
Octavian was indeed the right person to do it.
Van Meter (The Handbook of
Roman imperial coins)
comes up with another date, and writes that the
reverse figure is Mercury and ascribes the
reverse to the battle of Naulochus, in which
Octavian and
Lepidus (mainly,
Agrippa) destroyed the fleet of Sextus
Pompeius. This took place in 36 BC. The
victory re-opened sea trade with
Italy, and Mercury is the
patron of commerce. It isn’t mentioned in
his work when the coin would have been struck, and if
his attribution means that the coin would have been struck 4 or 5 years earlier then
Sear notes in
his book The
history and coinage of the
Roman imperators 49 - 26 BC, which is around 32/31 BC. Except for an intermediate issue (
RIC 543a /b),
Sear dates the series in 32/31 BC for the pre
Actium issues, and 31/30 BC for the post
Actium issues.
If you've read this far: thank you! So, the obvious question is: who is displayed on the
reverse? I only possess a very, very limited amount of books, and heavily rely on whatever is posted online. If anyone has more info, please let me know!