Bare-bottomed Venus Victrix

There are a number of coins that depict Venus in this fashion, presumably copied from a statue of Venus Victrix that was well-known and widely copied in antiquity. Here are examples from my collection.

Does anybody know anything more about the particular statue these coins may have been modelled on. I vaguely remember an article in the Celator a long time ago about it, but I have no idea which issue it was in.

I'd love to see examples by other members of this forum.



Julia Domna
Roman AR denarius
Rome, AD 194, issue 4
18.05 mm, 2.42 gm
Obv: JULIA DOMNA AVG, bare-headed and draped bust, r.
Rev: VENERI VICTR, Venus, naked to waist, standing r., holding apple and palm, resting l. elbow on column.
RIC-536; BMCRE-49; Sear-6608; Cohen-194; Hill-107



Julia Domna
Roman AR denarius
Eastern Mint (Emesa?), AD 193-196
3.58 gm; 16.8 mm
Obv: JULIA DOMNA AVG, bare-headed and draped bust, r.
Rev: VENER VICTOP (sic), Venus, naked to waist, standing r., holding apple and palm, resting l. elbow on column.
RIC-633; Cohen-189



Julia Domna
Roman oricalchum sestertius
Rome, AD 194, issue 4
21.41 gm, 28.8 mm
Obv: JULIA DOMNA AVG, bare-headed and draped bust, r.
Rev: VENERI VICTR SC, Venus, naked to waist, standing r., holding apple and palm, resting l. elbow on column.
RIC-842; BMCRE-488; Cohen-195; Sear-6631; Hill-113



Julia Titi
Roman AR denarius
Rome, AD 79-81
3.2 gm, 20.0 mm
Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA TITI AVGVSTI F, diademed and draped bust, r.
Rev: VENVS AVGVST, Venus, naked to waist, standing r., holding helmet and scepter, resting l. elbow on column.
RIC-56; BMCRE-141; Sear-2612

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great coins, especially the Julia T. S

Still don't own one of those reverses, even though they're fairly common. Just waiting for the right coin/price.

 

Probably this issue, which can be browsed online. I haven't read it yet-- so many issues to plow through!


I don't have any coins with this reverse yet but it's on the list

 

Coinboy!! ROFL!!!

 

Thanks! That's the exact article I had in mind!
And the Coinboy magazine parody is too funny!!

 

You still see that today at Walmart!

 

The article in the Celator is based on the Master's Thesis by Catherine L. Baron at the University of Memphis, Tennessee. The article argues that the original statue was the one in Pompey's temple of Venus Victrix; both the temple and the statue were destroyed centuries ago.

There are similar depictions of Venus Victrix on Mirrors in the collections of the Harvard Museum of Art:



And the Brooks Museum of Art in Memphis:



The similarities between the two mirrors suggests there was mass production going on in some ancient Roman mirror factory.

The same design is not infrequently seen on signet rings, such as this one in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts,



which leaves the following impression when pressed in wax:



Another signet ring, sold online by an antiquities dealer, depicts a skinnier version:



Very interesting. Note the coin of Julia Titi portrays Venus holding a staff and a helmet--just like the mirrors and the rings, but the coins of Julia Domna do not, depicting her instead with an apple and palm.

 

Old pic but got the front portion, lol.


JULIA DOMNA (193-217 AD)
O: IVLIA AVGVSTA, Draped bust right.
R:VENVS VICTRIX, Venus, naked to waist, standing left, holding helmet and palm, resting elbow on column, shield at feet.
RIC 581
BMCRE p. 168, 90
RSC 215
17.5
2.8g

 

very nice RC...one of these is high on my list.

She is a "hottie" isn't she?

 

Callipygian?

 

By definition

 

I never come on a thread until most things worth posting have been shown but I do have a few dozen of these so...
While we saw a scarce Julia Titi, the tyoe also come in Titus where it is common. Worthy of note is the fact that Flavians show Venus holding a statue while Severans have an apple/ball.


At Rome, Julia Domna has several styles separated by width of Venus' rear but fewer people notice the three major drapery differences. About equally common are those with drapery that passes under her bottom extending down either on the left or the right (be careful not to confuse the end of the palm with right side drapery) but only scarce denarii show the dangling drapery on both sides. The three coins below show these variations:
Left only


Right only


Both


However gold coins of Rome regularly have the drapery on both sides as shown on the Coinboy cover. Also coins of the Eastern mints regularly show both sides. There are many variations from Emesa with earlier coins using the same legend used at Rome VENERI VICTR.


A bit later VICTR was replaced by VICTOR


A few rare coins show the reverse spelled out VENERI VICTRICI. On this one the first I is weak but it is there.


This one has a normal reverse but the obverse is spelled IVLA. Oddly, this spelling shows up at both Emesa and Alexandria.


I do not have a Julia of this reverse from Alexandria but I do have something a great deal more rare. This is Alexandria with Venus and Septimius Severus. I really want to see other examples of this coin.


RC showed a sestertius so I'll show an as as my tenth and last allowable image here. Mine has both draperies. My sestertii both match RC's in having right side only. I have not noted one with left only but I have not searched in earnest.


Did I mention I liked this type? Was there a statue? Certainly. Was the original helmet removed and replaces sometime after Titus? Probably. Was the statue destroyed during the time of Domna and replaced with the dressed, front facing Venus we see commonly after that? That is a theory I can't prove one way or the other.

 

My Alexandrian is Domna and from different dies to that of Doug's above

VENERI VICTI

 

A quick thought about this point: The Flavian coin no doubt is modeled directly from the statue in all details, by an engraver familiar with both the statue and its context in Pompey's temple. The later Severan coins however may have been derived from the earlier renditions of the motif on coins, mirrors etc. The engraver may never have even seen the actual statue. In that case, it would be unsurprising if it seemed unimportant to replicate the secondary details with absolute fidelity.

 

Those are good thoughts on a question that has bothered me for years. My question is why the type was common twice and not used in other times. More, why did Domna drop the type in favor of the extremely modestly dressed Venus seen in the later years of her reign? Was there a stink about Domna appearing nude on coins and they decided all at once that the type was inappropriate. Why are there no copy statues of the type? Venus would seem to be the obvious goddess to appear nude on coins as do most of the men but more of her coins are even overdressed. I do not know.

Later Domna:


Alexandria


Loadicea


Lets blame Caracalla

 

The type struck under Titus depicts Venus holding a helmet. Perhaps more clearly seen on this example.

 

Taking a closer look at the later (~AD 210) issue of Julia Domna depicting the statuary group from the front, we see that she holds a Corinthian helmet (as in the coins of Titus and Julia Titi as well as the mirrors and the signet rings) and a palm frond, like the other issues of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna. Note there is a shield at her feet, as in the mirrors and the signet ring in the collection of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.



I think the coins and artifacts demonstrate that the iconography depicted in the statue of Venus Victrix in Pompey's temple to the goddess in Rome was well-known and widespread throughout the empire, such that engravers were familiar enough with its design to reproduce it from memory with a fair degree of accuracy, with minor variations in placement of objects in Venus' hands, the placement of the drapery, and the placement of the shield at her feet.

There were clearly other ways that Venus could be depicted apart from this particular statuary group as Doug Smith rightfully notes above.

 

Wouldn't be surprised if the original statue is long gone. Many of the most famous statues and temples of antiquity are survived only in coins, which kinda sucks because coins are notorious for not being at all accurate to the original, as we can see through all of these pictures here.
Such is life.

 

LOVE the posts!!!

Although I have quite a few 'but' coins I'm still missing the bare bottomed variety which is high on my 'wish-list'.

Interesting how differently (or modestly) Venus is depicted over time....