We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
The following enquiry has been undertaken in the hope that it may assist in clearing away some of the difficulties that surround the identification of the royal portraits occurring on silver coins that bear the simple inscription 
‘Incerta omnia et ambigua’ was the verdict with which Eckhel dismissed his discussion of the question. Since that judgement was pronounced, not a little light has been thrown on the dark places of the Seleucid series. This particular problem, however, still awaits a final solution. Under present conditions, most numismatists will be ready to admit that their own opinions are not undeserving of the description applied by Eckhel to those of Vaillant—‘vaga, fluctuantia, et saepe secum ipsis pugnantia.’ My experience in connection with the Hunter Cabinet has convinced me that what I may call the method of general attack is not likely to carry us far beyond the point that has been already reached. If there is to be further progress, there must be a change of tactics.
1 Besides the indispensable catalogues of Prof.Gardner, (Seleucid Kings of Syria, London, 1878)Google Scholar, and Babelon, M. (Rois de Syrie, etc., Paris, 1890)Google Scholar, see the late SirBunbury, E. H. on ‘Unpublished Coins of the Kings of Syria’ in Num. Chron., 1883 Google Scholar, (3rd series, vol. iii).
2 It is possible, on other grounds, to distinguish satisfactorily the portraits of the first four kings who bore the name of Seleucus. See Gardner, Seleucid Kings, pp. xviii. f.
3 See Bunbury's paper passim, and also the note by Prof.Gardner, in the same volume of the Num. Chron. (1883, pp. 261 Google Scholar ff.).
4 Die Münzen der Dynastie von Pergamon (Abhandl. der Königl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1884).
5 The use of the word ‘beneath’ implies that there is no exergual line.
6 In the case of specimens in the Bibliothèque Nationale, I give the reference to Babelon only, except for No. 18 which is so seriously misdescribed in Mionnet that it would he difficult to identify it in Babelon's list. Mionnet gives No. 3 under Antiochus Hierax (v. pp. 21 f.). The other Paris pieces were originally placed by him under Antiochus II. (v. p. 16). But in his Supplement (viii. p. 17) he withdraws this attribution, and assigns the whole to Hierax.
7 The specimen engraved in Vaillant, , Hist. Regum Syriae, p. 45 Google Scholar, appears (so far as one can judge from the imperfect representation) to belong to this class. But whether it is identical with this specimen I am unable to say.
8 It is with hesitation that I have decided that this is not from the same die as No. 10.
9 This specimen is considerably worn, but I am satisfied as to the identity of the dies.
9a I have not seen the original either of this or of No. 26, and I am unable to say which represents the first form of the die.
10 Leake (l. c.) describes this symbol as “Boeotian shield in wreath.” Dr. von Fritze, who has been good enough to examine the original for me, writes that what appear on the electrotype to be the ends of a wreath, seem to be merely marks due to oxidation.
11 Num. Chron. 1883, p. 77.
12 B.M.C. Lycaonia, etc., pp. xliv. f., footnote.
13 Die Münzen der Dyn. von Pergamon, p. 20. The explanation there suggested is that engravers of inferior skill were employed to cut the reverse dies. This, of course, is in no way inconsistent with the view put forward above.
13a Müller, Numismatique d' Alexandre le Grand, Nos. 923 f.
14 Babelon, Rois de Syrie, etc., pp. lv. f.
15 P. 480. No. 14 (Beilage 61, 14).
16 Op. cit. p. 504. Dr. von Fritze regards the wing as having been present on the die in its original form and as having been afterwards erased. Mr. Head was at first inclined to take this view, but he now agrees with me that the wing represents the second stage. For the purposes of our argument it is quite immaterial whether it is an addition or an erasure that we have to do with.
17 Steph. Byz. s.v.
18 B.M.C. Troas, etc. Pl. x. Nos. 9 ff.
19 A very slight tendency towards the same thing is noticeable in the Tobin Bush specimen of No. 21, which has also a flat reverse. Elsewhere I can detect no trace of anything of the sort. Some of the obverses in Class VI., e.g. Nos. 26, 27, and 28, fall away suddenly at the edge round a considerable part of the circumference. But the appearance presented is quite different from the regular bevel of Class IV.
20 Compare, for example, in B.M.C. Seleucid Kings, Pl. xi. the head on No. 7 with that on No. 1.
21 Cf. Plutarch, , Demetrius, 38 Google Scholar ad fin., and Appian, , Syr. 59–61 Google Scholar, with the data furnished by the cuneiform inscriptions of Babylon. See Wilcken, in Pauly-Wissowa's, Real-Encyclopädie, i. 2450 Google Scholar. I take this opportunity of acknowledging once for all my obligations to Wilcken's admirable articles on the early Antiochi.
21a Alexandria Troas was, of course, one of the three cities whose resistance to the claims of Antiochus directly occasioned the intervention of Rome (Livy, xxxv. 42). That it ultimately fell into his power, seems probable (see Drakenborch's note on Livy xxxvii. 35, § 2).
22 Op. cit. p. 110, 1; Pl. xxviii. 1b.
23 Op. cit. p. 108, 1; Pl. xxviii. 1a.
24 It is worth adding that there is a specimen of each class of stater in the Bodleian Collection, the provenance being similar to that of the B.M. coins. In his arrangement, Prof. Oman has (rightly as we shall see) assigned ths ‘Hierax’ head to Antiochus II.
25 Num. Chron. 1881, p. 11.
26 Rois de Syrie, etc., p. lxxx.
27 Gardner, , Seleucid Kings, p. 9 Google Scholar, No. 19.
28 Differences of this sort between the products of different mints are familiar to numismatists. It could not have been otherwise, especially if a reign were long. Even coins struck at the same mint sometimes present extraordinary contrasts; see, for example, the two heads of Nero reproduced in B.M.C., Galatia, etc., Pl. xxi. Nos. 8 and 9. Some interesting remarks by Graef, Botho on the limitations of the die-cutters will be found in Jahrbuch des Kaiserl., deutsch. archaeol. Instituts, xvii. p. 72 Google Scholar.
29 Hicks1, No. 165 (pp. 279 ff.) = Dittenberger1, No. 156 (pp. 238 ff.).
30 Troja und Ilion, pp. 503 f.
31 Ant., Johan. (Fragm. Hist. Graec. iv. 558 Google Scholar, 55).
32 Dittenberger1, No. 157, 1. 11 (p. 242). This is Wilcken's view (Pauly-Wissowa, i. 2464). Dittenberger (l.c.) considers that the reference is to Seleucus Nikator.
33 Zeitschr. für Assyr. vii. 234, 226, viii. 108. Keilschr. Biblioth. iii. 2, 136.
34 The corresponding drachm will be found described in Imhoof-Blumer, , Monn. grecq. p. 424 Google Scholar, No. 16, the monograms being different.
35 Babelon, , Rois de Syrie, p. 38 Google Scholar, No. 284; Six, , Num. Chron. 1898, p. 234 Google Scholar, No. 2; Mionnet, v. p. 21.
36 Pauly-Wissowa, , Real-Encycl. I. 2470 Google Scholar.
37 C.I.G. iii. 4458.
38 Droysen, , Hellenismus. iii. 2 Google Scholar, 121 ff., 133 ff.
39 Otto Kern, Die Inschriften von Magnesia am Maeander, No. 61.
40 Zeitschrift für Assyr. viii. 109.
41 This is very properly emphasised by Mr. E. R. Bevan in his House of Seleucus, which was published while this paper was in progress. The suggestion there made (vol. ii. p. 125) appears, however, to involve difficulties no less serious. We do not know how old the son of Seleucus Philopator was when his father died, we do not know whether his name was Antiochus, and there is no evidence that he was ever proclaimed βασιλєύς.
42 Zeitschr. für Assyr. viii. 110.
43 Num. Chron. 1898, pp. 234 f. We saw above that in his Supplement Mionnet, following Visconti, assigned all the winged diadem coins to Hierax. But he did so in the belief that the head was the head of Hierax. Dr. Six's view, of course, is quite different.
44 Num. Chron. 1883, p. 80.
45 See Bevan, E. R., House of Seleucus, i, p. 176 Google Scholar, with references there.
46 According to Justin (27, 2, 7) he was 14 in 238 or 237 B.C. I need hardly point out that the portrait on Plate II. 1 tallies exactly, so far as age is concerned, with the theory that it represents Hierax as he was when his father died.
46a The great majority of the identifications hitherto suggested are demonstrably wrong. We have already seen (p. 108 f.) that two sets of coins often given to Hierax really belong to Antiochus II. Similarly, the head figured by Reinach, M. Th. in L'Histoire par les Monnaies, p. 181 Google Scholar, is a youthful portrait of Antiochus III. Much is often made of a supposed resemblance to Seleucus II. It seems to be forgotten that family likenesses are at least as apt to run perpendicularly as to run horizontally; if Antiochus Hierax was the brother of Seleucus II., Antiochus II. was his father and Antiochus III. his son.
47 Imhoof-Blumer, , Monn. grecq., p. 426 Google Scholar.
48 While this is so, I confess that the one point that has caused me difficulty in Imhoof's arrangement, has always been the extraordinarily small allowance that it makes for the long reign of Attalus I. (241—197 B.C.). With characteristic frankness Dr. Imhoof has himself drawn particular attention to the deficiency (Die Münzen der Dyn. von Perg. p. 27).
49 Num. Hellen. p. 23.
50 C.I.A. II2, 968. See Larfeld in Iwan-Müller's, Handbuch (Hilfs-disziplinen 2 p. 536)Google Scholar.
51 Reinach, S., Traité de l'épigraph. grecq. p. 208 Google Scholar. Cf. Franz, , Elementa Epigraph. Graecae, p. 232 Google Scholar. Reinach well points out that cursive forms naturally come into use in metal sooner than in lapidary inscriptions.
52 Euseb., Chron. I. 251 Google Scholar (Ptolemaei auxiliis fretus proelium felici Marte conseruit). A few lines earlier Ptolemy is spoken of as if he had been a supporter of Hierax, or at least an opponent of Seleucus II., in the first stages of the civil war. These references will suffice to make good my point without entering on the vexed question discussed by Beloch, , Histor. Zeitschr. 1888, p. 501 Google Scholar, and Wilcken, in Pauly-Wissowa's, Real-Encycl. i, 2459 Google Scholar.
53 Op. cit. iii, p. 710. Attempts have been made to identify the Alexander who is supposed to be mentioned here, with the Alexander of certain inscriptions ( Niese, , Geschichte der Griech. und Maked. Staaten, ii. p. 154 Google Scholar, note; Bevan, E. R., House of Seleucus, i. p. 327)Google Scholar. Against such identifications there is nothing to be said, provided his existence can be proved.
