DOI issue:
Artykuły
DOI article:Kopij, Kamil: Propaganda on the coinage related to Pompey the Great
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22229#0056
KAMIL KOPIJ
the office had already been entrusted to Sulla one year before, during Pompey’s ten-
ure in the highest office. Both of these issues can be found in the hoard of Frauendorf,
where the latest coin is dated to 5633. It is therefore difficult to shift back the coinage
by two years. Another attempt at determining the datę was madę by Crawford34.
In his opinion, the coins were struck during the monetal triumvir’s tenure, which he
dates to 56 BC. This datę, however, is not certain. Crawford assumes a year-long
hiatus between the monetal triumvir’s tenure and the quaestor’s term, yet such an in-
termission was not necessary. Hence the other theory put forward by Harlan35, who
shifted the issue of the coin to one year later. He asserts that the character of the coin
representations is better suited to the political context of the year 55, when Pompey
the Great and Crassus held their joint consulship for the second time. He also argues
that regardless of the year of the issue, the coins may have been intended for the
purpose of Pompey’s service as the grain supply curator (curator annonae). It is not
certain, however, if he had still held that office, despite his original five-year term36 37.
Yet another theory links the appearance of the coinage with the festive inauguration
of the Opera Pompę?1.
In spite of the absence of Pompey’s name in the legend inscriptions, there is no
doubt that Sulla had “lent” the coin space to his father-in-law. Depending on the as-
sumed dating, however, the message thereon can be interpreted somewhat differently.
The choice of the gods represented on the obverses of the coins is related not
only to Sulla’s family tradition, but also to the deities venerated by Pompey. On the
first coin, Venus is depicted with a diadem and a laurel wreath on her head. The latter
attribute, in particular, does not leave much doubt as to the identification of the deity
with Yenus Victrix, venerated by Pompey. In the year of his consulship, he inaugu-
rated a magnificent complex, Opera Pompei, which, in actual fact, can be considered
in terms of an urban shrine dedicated to the goddess38. Other deities venerated there,
i.e., Yictoria, Felicitas, Yirtus, and Honos, are all joined together in the so-called the-
ology of yictory39. The sceptre resting on the shoulder is a symbol of authority.
33 RRC, p. 88.
34 RRC, pp. 88, 448W49.
35 HARLAN, Roman Republican Moneyers, pp. 100, 106.
36 Cic. adAtt. 4.1; Li\.per. 104; App. Bell Civ. 2.18.67; Dio Cass. 39.9.3; BOAK, “The Extraordinary Com-
mands...”, pp. 19-20; VAN OOTEGHEM, Pompee..., pp. 367-368; LEACH, Pompey the Great, pp. 135-138;
R. T. RIDLEY, “Pompey's command in the fifities: how cumulative?”, Rheinisches Museum fuer Philologie, 126, pp.
136, 139, 143-145 [136-148]; SEAGER, Pompey the Great..., pp. 108-109; BEARD, The Roman Triumph, p. 22.
37 R. SCHILLING, La religion romaine de Venus, Paris 1954, p. 297; HARLAN, Roman Republican Mo-
neyers, pp. 100, 106.
38 SPEIDEL, Wenus Victrix...”, pp. 2225-2227.
39 For morę on the theology of victory, see FEARS, “The Theology...”, pp. 736-826; on the coins related
to Pompey the Great in the light of the theology of victory, see K. KOPIJ, “The Coins Related to Pompey the
Great Through the Lens of the Theology of Victory”, Proceedings of the 6'h International Numismatic Congress in
Croatia, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia, September 26-29, 2010, Rijeka 2011, pp. 141-150.
the office had already been entrusted to Sulla one year before, during Pompey’s ten-
ure in the highest office. Both of these issues can be found in the hoard of Frauendorf,
where the latest coin is dated to 5633. It is therefore difficult to shift back the coinage
by two years. Another attempt at determining the datę was madę by Crawford34.
In his opinion, the coins were struck during the monetal triumvir’s tenure, which he
dates to 56 BC. This datę, however, is not certain. Crawford assumes a year-long
hiatus between the monetal triumvir’s tenure and the quaestor’s term, yet such an in-
termission was not necessary. Hence the other theory put forward by Harlan35, who
shifted the issue of the coin to one year later. He asserts that the character of the coin
representations is better suited to the political context of the year 55, when Pompey
the Great and Crassus held their joint consulship for the second time. He also argues
that regardless of the year of the issue, the coins may have been intended for the
purpose of Pompey’s service as the grain supply curator (curator annonae). It is not
certain, however, if he had still held that office, despite his original five-year term36 37.
Yet another theory links the appearance of the coinage with the festive inauguration
of the Opera Pompę?1.
In spite of the absence of Pompey’s name in the legend inscriptions, there is no
doubt that Sulla had “lent” the coin space to his father-in-law. Depending on the as-
sumed dating, however, the message thereon can be interpreted somewhat differently.
The choice of the gods represented on the obverses of the coins is related not
only to Sulla’s family tradition, but also to the deities venerated by Pompey. On the
first coin, Venus is depicted with a diadem and a laurel wreath on her head. The latter
attribute, in particular, does not leave much doubt as to the identification of the deity
with Yenus Victrix, venerated by Pompey. In the year of his consulship, he inaugu-
rated a magnificent complex, Opera Pompei, which, in actual fact, can be considered
in terms of an urban shrine dedicated to the goddess38. Other deities venerated there,
i.e., Yictoria, Felicitas, Yirtus, and Honos, are all joined together in the so-called the-
ology of yictory39. The sceptre resting on the shoulder is a symbol of authority.
33 RRC, p. 88.
34 RRC, pp. 88, 448W49.
35 HARLAN, Roman Republican Moneyers, pp. 100, 106.
36 Cic. adAtt. 4.1; Li\.per. 104; App. Bell Civ. 2.18.67; Dio Cass. 39.9.3; BOAK, “The Extraordinary Com-
mands...”, pp. 19-20; VAN OOTEGHEM, Pompee..., pp. 367-368; LEACH, Pompey the Great, pp. 135-138;
R. T. RIDLEY, “Pompey's command in the fifities: how cumulative?”, Rheinisches Museum fuer Philologie, 126, pp.
136, 139, 143-145 [136-148]; SEAGER, Pompey the Great..., pp. 108-109; BEARD, The Roman Triumph, p. 22.
37 R. SCHILLING, La religion romaine de Venus, Paris 1954, p. 297; HARLAN, Roman Republican Mo-
neyers, pp. 100, 106.
38 SPEIDEL, Wenus Victrix...”, pp. 2225-2227.
39 For morę on the theology of victory, see FEARS, “The Theology...”, pp. 736-826; on the coins related
to Pompey the Great in the light of the theology of victory, see K. KOPIJ, “The Coins Related to Pompey the
Great Through the Lens of the Theology of Victory”, Proceedings of the 6'h International Numismatic Congress in
Croatia, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia, September 26-29, 2010, Rijeka 2011, pp. 141-150.