Imperatorial Issues
Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra. Denarius, uncertain mint in the East (Chalcis ?) 34, AR 3.98 g. CLEOPATRAE – REGINAE·REGVM·FILIORVM·REGVM Draped and diademed bust of Cleopatra r.; before, prow. Rev. ANTONI·ARMENIA·DEVICTA Bare head of M. Antony r.; behind, Armenian tiara. Babelon Antonia 95. C 1. Sydenham 1210. Butcher, Coinage in Roman Syria p. 57, fig. 8.2. Sear Imperators 345. RBW 1832. Crawford 543/1.
Unusually well struck and complete. Two attractive portraits and
a lovely old cabinet tone, good very fine Ex Triton sale VII, 2004, 839.

As T.V. Buttrey eloquently discusses in his recent article ”Grammar and History: Thoughts on Some Late Roman Republican Coins” in Essays Russo, several interpretations can be drawn from the legends on this relatively common, yet interesting coin:

”This issue can be dated to 34 by the celebration of the Conquest of Armenia, and of the triumph which was the occasion of the promotion of their children to the rank of Hellenistic monarchs. The question is whether the genitive (a) represents the late Republican usage of identifying a portrait with a label: ”[imago] Antoni”, ”[imago] Cleopatrae”. Antony had already been accommodating a wife or two on his coins, so that the appearance of Cleopatra could be taken as being of that order, even if in bad taste on a coin intended for Romans.

Alternatively (b), we might move beyond the simple imago to a possessive [might we call it an ”authoritative”?] genitive, reading: ”[this is a coin] of Antony”. As indeed it was. But this opens new territory, requiring ”[this is a coin] of Cleopatra [and] of [her {their!}] children”. With the children we have in any case moved away from the imago interpretation, since they are not represented by imagines.

Or should we see the genitive more forcefully (c) as the regular Hellenistic usage, and attribute this issue to Antony as implied Hellenistic king? Note that among the large number of coins struck by Antony in all metals from 44 B.C. onwards, this denarius is absolutely unique in that he is identified by his name alone, unaccompanied by even a single one of his various political and celebratory titles. Here Antony is not entitled ”Basileus” of course, but the implications should be clear. (Caesar, after all, made himself ”Rex” in all but name.)

The kingly implication was all over the place anyhow, i.e. when Antony presided over the Armenian triumph in Alexandria seated side-by-side with Cleopatra, and above their children now garbed as, and formally designated as, Hellenistic kinglets. Again, we are told that in his will Antony requested that he be buried next to Cleopatra: that can only have been in one place, in Alexandria, in the Royal Ptolemaic tombs.

The final, and richest, possibility lies in (d). Perhaps we have been reading the coin upside down, and we have here a unique issue of denarii by Cleopatra, reading

CLEOPATRAE REGINAE REGVM FILIORVM REGVM ANTONI ARMENIA DEVICTA

Not struck at Alexandria, to be sure, -- the half-figure bust is not characteristic of her Alexandrian portraiture --but produced at one of her mints to the East – not Damascus where the style and fabric of the tetradrachm (not to mention the alloy) are quite distinct.

In theme we can compare Cleopatra’s coinage at Chalcis (RPC I.4771), where the two are portrayed on opposite faces of the coin – which speaks volumes of their parallel positions and powers -- though the legends are hers alone:

Head of Cleopatra, BACILICCHC KLÎOPATRAC

Head of Antony, ÎTOUC KA TOU KAIÎ QÎAC NÎWTÎRAC .

On the denarius Cleopatra acknowledged openly, with the Hellenistic genitive legend, that Antony was, effectively, equal sharer of the monarchy.

This may also provide the explanation of the issue itself. The sources tell us of the aid which Cleopatra gave to Antony on more than one occasion. They also refer, independently and with little detail, to the so-called ”Donations”, whereby Antony went beyond providing Cleopatra with supplies (e.g. timber for the fleet) but bestowed on her whole territories that had been under Roman—Antony’s -- control. The Romans of course saw the alienation of their eastern territories—the ”Gifts” -- as the un- controllable madness of a love-sick Imperator. But the Donations could have been a straight business deal, Antony having to repay Cleopatra’s financial support with territory. The denarii of this issue were poorly and perhaps hastily struck, yet struck in very large numbers. As a Roman denomination, with legends in Latin, they would have been persuasive pay for Antony’s troops. The denarii may well have been produced by Cleopatra as queen: the power was shared but the money was hers. In their physical survival today they could represent a portion of her half of the deal that underlay the ”Donations”.