Naville Numismatics Ltd.
Auction 73 8 May 2022
View prices realized
► Sale information
Find similar lots
Cleopatra and Marcus Antonius. Tetradrachm circa 36-34, AR 26.20 mm., 10.87 g.
ΒΑCΙΛΙCCA ΚΛЄΕΟΠΑΤΡΑ ΘΕΑ ΝΕWΤΕΡΑ Diademed bust of Cleopatra r. Rev. ΑΝΤWΝIΟC AYTOKPATWΡ ΤΡΙΤΟΝ ΤΡΙWΝ ΑΝΔΡWΝ Bare head of M. Antonius r. C 2. BMC 53. McAlee 174/1. Prieur 27. Butcher, Coinage in Roman Syria p. 57, fig. 8.1. RPC 4094.
Rare Lovely portrait of M. Antony while
As the struggle between Marcus Antonius and Octavian dragged on in the 30s BC, the geographical and political lines became ever more defined. Antony had become entrenched in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in doing so had allied himself with Cleopatra VII, queen of Egypt, whose original supporter in Rome, Iulius Caesar, had been murdered years before. She had his son, Caesarion, at her side, but she needed an ally like Antony if she hoped to preserve Egypt from the ever-widening grasp of Rome. Importantly, Antony was easier to manipulate than Octavian, who had no sympathy for Cleopatra's motives. Although this woman of blinding intellect may have found her marriage to Antonius a degrading experience, personally, she was crafty enough to realise it was her only chance at survival. Hence, she was probably eager to issue dual-portrait coins, such as the billon tetradrachm offered here. The level of concession is clear, especially on this example: Cleopatra's portrait has taken on the facial features of Antony in a very strong way, yet she retains for herself the position of dominance by placing her portrait on the obverse. Little more indication is necessary to recognise that Cleopatra had effectively dominated her husband, the Roman warlord Antonius. The date and mint of these coins is uncertain, as the coins themselves provide no substantial clue. They are typically described as having been struck at Antioch, though there is good reason to believe that they were produced further south, in Cleopatra's Phoenician territory. The date circa 36-34 BC has been suggested, and is generally believed appropriate. If so, we might see this coinage as supporting Antonius' invasion of Parthia, a colossal failure that cost the lives of many thousands of Roman soldiers.
ΒΑCΙΛΙCCA ΚΛЄΕΟΠΑΤΡΑ ΘΕΑ ΝΕWΤΕΡΑ Diademed bust of Cleopatra r. Rev. ΑΝΤWΝIΟC AYTOKPATWΡ ΤΡΙΤΟΝ ΤΡΙWΝ ΑΝΔΡWΝ Bare head of M. Antonius r. C 2. BMC 53. McAlee 174/1. Prieur 27. Butcher, Coinage in Roman Syria p. 57, fig. 8.1. RPC 4094.
Rare Lovely portrait of M. Antony while
As the struggle between Marcus Antonius and Octavian dragged on in the 30s BC, the geographical and political lines became ever more defined. Antony had become entrenched in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in doing so had allied himself with Cleopatra VII, queen of Egypt, whose original supporter in Rome, Iulius Caesar, had been murdered years before. She had his son, Caesarion, at her side, but she needed an ally like Antony if she hoped to preserve Egypt from the ever-widening grasp of Rome. Importantly, Antony was easier to manipulate than Octavian, who had no sympathy for Cleopatra's motives. Although this woman of blinding intellect may have found her marriage to Antonius a degrading experience, personally, she was crafty enough to realise it was her only chance at survival. Hence, she was probably eager to issue dual-portrait coins, such as the billon tetradrachm offered here. The level of concession is clear, especially on this example: Cleopatra's portrait has taken on the facial features of Antony in a very strong way, yet she retains for herself the position of dominance by placing her portrait on the obverse. Little more indication is necessary to recognise that Cleopatra had effectively dominated her husband, the Roman warlord Antonius. The date and mint of these coins is uncertain, as the coins themselves provide no substantial clue. They are typically described as having been struck at Antioch, though there is good reason to believe that they were produced further south, in Cleopatra's Phoenician territory. The date circa 36-34 BC has been suggested, and is generally believed appropriate. If so, we might see this coinage as supporting Antonius' invasion of Parthia, a colossal failure that cost the lives of many thousands of Roman soldiers.