A Box Mirror Made from Two Antinous Medallions of Smyrna. moreAmerican Journal of Numismatics Second Series 18 (2006), 63-74. © 2006 The American Numismatic Society |
222 views |
AJN Second Series () pp. –
© e American Numismatic Society
A Box Mirror Made from Two Antinous Medallions of Smyrna
P – SEBASTIAN HEATH*
e ANS has acquired a box mirror formed from two Antinous medallions of Smyrna. Consideration of the techniques of manufacture and comparison with other modied coins of Antinous support the antiquity of the manufacture of the mirror. e combination of a portrait of Antinous, a Dionysiac reverse in the form of a female panther, and an internal mirrored surface is the starting point for an examination of the cultural context of this piece.
In , the American Numismatic Society purchased a box mirror made from two modied specimens of a medallic type of Smyrna. Catalogued as a single numismatic item, this new acquisition can be described as follows: Ionia, Smyrna, posthumous issue for Antinous (d. ), issued by Polemon before . Plate no. . Acc. number: .. AE medallion, . g Obv.: Head of Antinous right; [ANTINOOS] HPΩC Rev.: Female panther le holding lleted thyrsus in raised right forepaw; ΠΟ[ΛΕΜ]ΩΝ ΑΝΕΘΗΚΕ CΜVΡ ΝΑΙΟΙC Ref.: Cf. Blum (), Smyrna, no. ;¹ Klose (), Antinoos XLVI (V/R); purchased from Triton VIII ( January ), lot ; previously Schweizerische Kreditanstalt (– April ), lot .
* e American Numismatic Society, Fulton Street, New York, NY (heath@numismatics.org). . e plates from Blum () are reproduced in Meyer (: pl. –).
62
S H
e reverse type on this piece is one of four images — showing either the female panther on this piece, a bull, a sheep, or a ship’s prow — that appear on a series of medallions struck at Smyrna in honor of Antinous and naming Polemon as issuer. ese two individuals are both historical gures and their biographical information provides the framework for dating the issue. Antinous was the companion of the emperor Hadrian who drowned in the Nile in late . He was quickly deied and his worship was encouraged throughout the empire (Meyer : –). ese medallions, with ANTINOOC HPΩC as the obverse legend, must date to aer Antinous’ death. Marcus Antonius Polemon, a sophist born in Phrygian Laodikeia who studied and spent his adult career in Smyrna, was a prominent intellectual said to have been personally known to the emperors Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius (Philostratus, Lives of the Sophists ff). In , Polemon had spoken before Hadrian and persuaded him to make a gi of money and grant a series of honors to Smyrna, not least of which was a second temple to the imperial cult (IvS ; Burrell : –).² is prior relationship likely played a part in Polemon’s decision to issue a medallion for the emperor’s deied favorite. Polemon also appears as strategos on coins of Hadrian (Klose Hadrian XLIV Series C), and this issue may be contemporaneous with the medallic series. Klose’s (: ) dating of these medallions follows Blum’s (: ) assignment of most coinages of Antinous to aer , and by extension Klose also dates Polemon’s strategos coinage to this year or shortly thereaer. Neither of these issues naming Polemon, however, provides an independent date for the other. e only rm dates for the medallic series remain the death of Antinous in and the death of Polemon in , though the death of Hadrian in is also a plausible terminus ante quem.³ As discussed by the catalogers of both the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt and Triton VIII auctions, the unique interest in this new acquisition lies in its transformation into a small box mirror formed from two examples of this Smyrna type. One medallion had its obverse face removed and interior hollowed out, leaving the reverse type untouched. e deepest part of the exposed interior was then smoothed and further enhanced by the application of a thin layer of silver or tin that transformed this medallion into a mirror. A second medallion was also cut down so that its obverse would t into the hollowed reverse of the rst. Closer description of the work involved in the creation of the mirror indicates the care taken in the modication of the two source medallions. e surviving marks and surfaces indicate that a combination of chiseling, ling, and lathing was employed. Taking the hollowed-out reverse rst, the interior face of the raised edge preserves signs of chiseling (Plate no. B). is suggests that the initial step was to remove the obverse surface to a depth of approximately mm. en a lathe
. is temple may be represented on coins of the city issued under Hadrian by the stephanophorus P. Sextus (Klose Hadrian XLIV Series A), though Burrell (: ) has questioned this architectural identication. . Vout (: ) emphasizes ongoing dedications to Antinous past the death of Hadrian.
Box Mirror Made from Antinous Medallions
63
was used to prepare a ledge on which the mirror’s lid would rest (Plate no. C). A further lathing step created a deeper surface onto which the mirroring was then placed (Plate no. A). Including the mirroring, this surface is a further . mm deep. e lid of the mirror was formed by a more drastic reduction of another medallion that le only the obverse preserved as a thin disk mm in diameter. Linear marks on the slightly concave interior of the lid indicate the use of a chisel (Plate no. D). A smoothed, perhaps lathed, outer ring allowed the lid to lie comfortably on the prepared resting surface surrounding the mirror (Plate no. E). Finally, the edges of the lid show signs of ling (Plate no. F). Altogether, the workmanship is such that the depth of the interior resting ledge allows the lid to lie ush with the upper edge of the mirrored back. However, the diameter of the lid is slightly smaller than the opening in which it rests, so that a ring of now lost material may have made the t tighter. As indicated above, this reconstruction assumes that two medallions were used to make the mirror and its cover. Manufacture from only one piece would have required the thin lid to have been removed from the source medallion without damaging its edges when undercutting the metal. e high edges of the mirrored back suggest that this would not have been possible.⁴ Description of the piece raises the issue of when the medallions were cut down and the mirrored surface added. Unfortunately, in the absence of a welldocumented ndspot or of scientic analysis that can date the metalwork, it is not possible to unequivocally assert that the mirror is of ancient manufacture, and this article will not do so. Nonetheless, a tabulation of other examples of modied coins and medallions of Antinous will indicate that such transformations are known from the ancient world, and thus the current piece cannot be condemned solely on the basis of uniqueness or because it is implausible. Mirrors in general are well known in the eastern Mediterranean from the Archaic period onward (Jonsson : –). Circular lathe-worked box mirrors became popular during the Hellenistic period and are regularly found as grave goods from that time forward (Chavane : –; Webb : ). Hollowedout coins, although rare, are likewise known from the Roman period (Gnecchi a), so that the technical skill necessary to transform these two medallions was well within the capabilities of ancient craworkers. In terms of the mirrored surface, by the Republican period in Italy, silver had been recognized as superior to bronze for manufacturing reective surfaces, and Pliny includes mirrors in his rst-century survey of metals and their uses (Natural History .).⁵ is combination of material and textual evidence preliminarily indicates that the ANS mirror is comfortable as an ancient object.
. As an addendum to this description, it is useful to add that Italo Vecchi has kindly reported that he oversaw the mirror’s rst consignment to public sale in (personal communication with Ute Wartenberg, September ). e consignor delivered it to him as a single piece and it was only upon cleaning in that the interior mirror was revealed. e Triton VIII catalogue incorrectly gives the date of cleaning as .
64
S H
Table lists thirteen (with nos. and accounting for two examples each) coins and medallions of Antinous, including the piece under discussion here, that have been modied in some degree. e two additional examples of Polemon medallions from Smyrna are particularly relevant as being from the same mint as the new ANS piece (no. ). Number has been pierced for suspension so that the reverse would have hung in correct orientation. A similar purpose was achieved by the addition of an iron ring to no. . In this instance, the reverse image of a bull standing right is relatively worn in comparison to the obverse image, which suggests that Antinous usually faced forward when the piece was in use. e pierced medallion of Delphi (no. ) would also have hung with Antinous right side up. Direct attachment to clothing, rather than suspension on a string or chain, is a more likely explanation for the three small holes seen evenly spaced around the edge of a uniface medallion from Arcadia (no. ). More ambiguous are the two holes in an Alexandrian drachm (no. ), as neither face would have hung properly on a string passed through the holes, which are also not so carefully placed as on the Arcadian piece. Little certainty can be brought to bear on number , an AE of Corinth, which was holed and then replugged. Similarly, the specic reason for removing the reverse face of an AE of Bithynion-Claudiopolis (no. ) is not knowable, though it is worth noting that the existence of coins with one side erased is otherwise attested (Gnecchi b). e most direct parallel for the manufacture of the new ANS mirror is the similar piece previously in the Jameson collection (no. ), which combined an obverse of an Antinous medallion from Arcadia with a reverse from BithynionClaudiopolis. ese were recut as the case for a mirror.⁶ Both the ANS piece and the ex-Jameson piece have a functional purpose as mirrors. e modications applied to the two Tarsus medallions listed in Table may be more decorative. Number , an AE showing the river god Kydnos on the reverse, has been encased in two circles of bronze that bring its diameter up to an impressive mm. e edge of number was serrated aer production. It is very interesting that a chi-rho has also been inscribed on the reverse. e cataloger of Triton VIII suggests that this may have served to cancel the power imbued in the object by the image of Antinous. Individually, each of these objects is impeachable as having been modied after antiquity. ere is no reason, however, to select one from the list for particular condemnation, so the existence of the group makes each member individually
. Pliny’s statement that the transition from bronze to silver was made in the time of Pompey the Great (d. ) is proven incorrect by an earlier reference to silvered mirrors in the Mostellaria (..) of Plautus (d. ). It is in the same section that Pliny mentions mirrors dedicated in a temple at Smyrna, though that reference is incidental to the discussion here. . Jameson , p. describes the mirror as a separate insert. Bank Leu Auktion (April ) lot suggests that the mirror was applied to the hollowed-out obverse.
Box Mirror Made from Antinous Medallions Table . Modied coins and medallions of Antinous
No. Minting Authority Corinth Reverse Bellerophon restraining Pegasus Modication Holed, then plugged Published M & M Numismatics I (December , ), lot Blum (), p. no. (Plate I.)
65
Delphi
Antinous stand- Pierced at : ing le in heroic of obverse pose on statue base Hermes standing right
(Pl. , )
Arcadia obverse with BithynionClaudiopolis reverse Arcadia
Transformed into Jameson III, ; Bank container for Leu, Auktion (April mirror ), lot
(Pl. , ) (Pl. , )
Uniface. ree holes evenly spaced at edge Reverse intentionally removed Bull standing right Iron suspension ring attached
ANS ..; Blum , p. , no. SNG Cop. , Blum (), p. (no. ) Edward J. Waddell, Ltd. (Dec. , ), lot ; Triton VIII, (January , ), lot
BithynionClaudiopolis Smyrna
(Pl. , ) (Pl. , ) (Pl. , )
Smyrna
Female panther Turned into a box ANS ..; Triton with thyrsus mirror VIII (January , ), lot Female panther Pierced at : with thyrsus of reverse River Kydnos reclining le Encircled in two bronze rings Blum (), p. , no. . Mowat (), p. (Plate IV.) Triton VIII (January th, ), lot Gorny & Mosch Giessener Münzhandlung, Auction , lot
Smyrna Tarsus Tarsus
Female panther Edge serrated, with paw on reverse inscribed kantharos with “chi-rho” Antinous riding Two holes horse
Alexandria
more plausible. Similarly, it should be stressed that while this note has the Smyrna mirror as its focus, modied and reused coins are well known from the Roman period (Vermeule ). Among other reuses, Roman imperial gold and silver was oen set in jewelry (Bruhn ), pierced coins are a usual occurrence in numismatic collections and catalogues, and coins are occasionally attached to or embedded in metal vessels (e.g. Chabouillet : no. ; Comstock and
66
S H
Vermeule : cat. ). Likewise, the reuse of coins continued into late antiquity, when numismatic imagery and actual coins appear in silver tableware that itself functioned as a store of wealth (Leader-Newby ; Baratte : g. ). Table must therefore be taken as illustrating only a small component of a much larger phenomenon in which the transactional function of any individual numismatic item is deprecated in favor of its utility as an easily available source of ready-made iconography. e widespread practice of modifying and reusing coins means that it is not possible to put a rm latest limit on when the ANS mirror was made. Assuming its antiquity, the subject matter, two pagan gods, suggests diminishing relevance in Christian late antiquity. Nonetheless, Vout (: ) emphasizes the continued appeal of the divine Antinous through the late third century and notes that in at least one instance, the bath at Lepcis Magna, his public sculpture remained in place into the sixth century. Antinous also appears as an obverse type on contorniates (Alföldi and Alföldi : Kat. –) and these iconographically rich objects, despite the difficulty in dating generic types, are certainly a late-antique phenomenon. In the Antinous series, one type (Kat. , Rs. ) shows a reverse bull that closely matches the animal found on the Antinous medallions from Smyrna. Taken generally, these contorniates demonstrate an ongoing interest in the gure of Antinous. More specically, the fact that they reproduce images originally appearing in numismatic contexts raises the issue of ancient coin collecting, in that the artisan who produced the Antinous/Bull contorniate may well have had an original to copy. It is therefore not impossible that the two specimens of the Smyrna medallion from which this mirror was made were drawn from a longstanding collection of ancient coins. ese observations show that the mirror itself can reasonably date to well aer the issuance of the source medallions, but since there is no route to a certain time or place of manufacture, a broad second-century to late-antique range provides an appropriate degree of ambiguity. Questions as to “why” are just as interesting as those relating to “when”; thus, this note will turn to an exploration of the cultural context of these paired images of Antinous and Dionysus, which serve as the cover and backing for a mirror. Caution is warranted, however, since the danger exists of either being too specic in one’s reconstructions or of casting one’s net so widely that only generalities result. Accordingly, while evidence from the second century and from the eastern Mediterranean is prominent in the following discussion, that is only because it will remain relevant even if the transformation happened later. It must also be said that there is necessarily an element of speculation to what follows, in that the impetus to create the mirror and the circumstances of its subsequent use are not recoverable. Nonetheless, rather than leaving these issues entirely unaddressed, a broad reconstruction of possible associations for this piece is more likely to explain its manufacture.⁷
Box Mirror Made from Antinous Medallions
67
e iconography of the obverse and reverse provides the starting point for exploring the cultural context of this mirror. In its original state, Antinous’ image was explicitly labeled on the obverse and the female panther with thyrsus is an unambiguous reference to the god Dionysus. While the pairing of these new and ancient divinities on this Smyrna type — and also on coins struck for Bithynia, Dion, Sala, Sardis, and Tarsus (Blum ) — is itself evidence for a connection between Antinous and Dionysus, further ancient evidence of this association is given by free-standing statues and relief panels that depict the young hero with the god’s attributes. Imperial approval of the combination is suggested by the presence of the Lansdowne Antinous (Fitzwilliam GR.; Raeder : cat I ), a head crowned with grape-bearing vine, in the Villa Hadriana at Tivoli. Textual evidence for the association is likewise suggested by Pausanias, who speaks of a group of statues of Antinous at Mantinea in Arcadia where the hero is “made to look like Dionysus” (Paus. ..). Antinous was assimilated to other gods as well, but it is not surprising that his connection with the god of wine found expression at Smyrna. Herodotus rst establishes the antiquity of devotion to Dionysus at Smyrna (Hdt. .), though he identies the participants in the festival he describes as being Aeolian Greeks. As worshipped in the Ionian city, Dionysus was known as Briseus, and this name appears on a bronze plaquette of the third century said to be from the environs of İzmir and now in the British Museum (Klose : ). Additionally, second-century epigraphic evidence records the activities of the initiates of Dionysus Briseus (IvS [c. ]; Harland ) in the ancient city. It is into this pairing of recently deied hero and anciently worshipped god that the interior mirrored surface was introduced. Breaking the object down into two pairs — consisting of each divine persona coupled with the added mirror — gives focus to the discussion. ere is a well-established connection between Dionysus and mirrors. In one version of the god’s early life, Dionysus, then known as Zagreus, was born from the union of Persephone and Zeus, who had taken the form of a snake. Shortly aer birth, the baby crawled on to Zeus’s throne, where he became distracted by looking at his own image in a mirror. In an act of spite against her unfaithful husband, Hera arranged for a party of Titans, the early enemies of the Olympian gods, to fall upon the young god and cut him into pieces. Zeus then took his son’s heart and by an uncertain process used it to impregnate Semele, who subsequently gave birth to Dionysus. e fullest version of this story is given by Nonnus (.–), who wrote in the h century , but Justin Martyr (First Apology and ) and Pausanias (..) give the narrative currency in the second century and later. e rst-century historian Diodorus
. e sale catalogues referenced above, particularly the Schweizerische Kreditanstalt entry by M. Brandt, initiate this discussion and are the starting point for the additional observations provided here.
68
S H
Siculus alluded to this episode when he wrote that “Orpheus has handed down the tradition in the initiatory rites that he [Dionysus] was torn in pieces by the Titans” (..). e rites are those by which an initiate gained knowledge of the Orphic mysteries, and the relevance of the Dionysus narrative comes from the fact that Orpheus was likewise torn to pieces — in his case by maenads — and also reborn, so that both mythic gures share in the cycle of death and rebirth (Doueihi : ). e overlap suggests that the box mirror could well have had particular meaning within the rituals of a mystery cult. To the extent that it is appropriate to continue to look to Smyrna for explanatory context, it is relevant that the Orphic mysteries rituals were assimilated in the worship of Dionysus at the city (IvS [second century?]). An obvious earlier precedent for giving mirrors a role in the worship of Dionysus is found in the fresco cycle of the Villa of the Mysteries at Pompeii. Here, the young woman who is plausibly identied as a candidate for initiation into a mystery cult begins or ends the ritual in the presence of a mirror held by either Cupid or Psyche. More generally, De Grummond () has recently reemphasized the place of katoptromancy, the prophetic use of mirrors, in this Dionysiac context. In the third century, the neoplatonist Plotinus developed the Mirror of Dionysus as a metaphor for the human soul (Pépin ; Jonsson : –). In doing so, he built upon a rich font of ancient philosophy and related magical practices that over time had explored the symbolic potential of reected images (Bartsch : –; Stewart ). ere is no direct literary link between Antinous and mirrors, though this piece and Jameson III, establish a material connection. Nonetheless, parallels with mythic gures, particularly Narcissus, make the idea of self-gaze relevant to understanding the perception of Antinous (Elsner ). Multiple versions of Narcissus’ story exist (Ovid Metamorphoses .–; Pausanias ..; for P Oxy LXIX , see Hutchinson ), but the essential narrative arc, in which Narcissus dies aer becoming infatuated with his own image in the reective surface of a pool, is common to all. Homoerotic desire is also important in both main versions of the myth. For his part, Antinous is compared to Narcissus in a secondcentury papyrus from Tebtynis (P Mil. Vogl. I ) that partially preserves a series of rhetorical exercises (Colomo ). A fully preserved paragraph (col. , l. –col. , l. ) lists the mythic gures, both male and female, who have given their names to either owers, plants, or trees, with both Antinous and Narcissus being in this group. Of all the owers listed, it is the one named aer Antinous that is sweeter than those of both Hyacinthus and Narcissus, who both represent warnings of the
. It is a point of only historiographic interest that a proposed, though utterly unattested, cult-room in Smyrna has previously been suggested as a source for this Pompeian cycle (Mudie Cooke ). Modern research on the cycle now downplays the search for any Greek original in favor of efforts to understand its Italic context (Davis ).
Box Mirror Made from Antinous Medallions
69
danger of excessive beauty that bear upon the perception of Antinous. is ranking also matches the perceived relative beauty of each ower’s eponymous youth. It is not necessary to keep to unequivocally attested associations in order to recover the likely range of reactions to a box mirror having an image of Antinous on its lid. Ancient prose sources emphasize Antinous’s physical attractiveness as his distinguishing characteristic (SHA Hadrian .–; Clement of Alexandria Protrepticus ). Similarly, a fragmentary hymn inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Curium in Cyprus draws particular attention to Antinous’s beautiful hair (Lebek : , l. ), which is always richly rendered in statues and on coins (Meyer : pl. –). Accordingly, it is inherently appropriate to pair such a paragon of beauty with a mirror, even a small one. It is possible that an emphasis on personal beauty is both appropriate and sufcient such that none of the associations adduced above for Dionysus or Antinous would come to mind to an ancient viewer. If the user of this piece was a man, he may have been content to see a partial image of himself next to the youthful prole of Antinous as he held the small mirror and its cover before him. But it is also useful to draw in the rhetorical approach of the Second Sophistic, a movement that spans much of the likely period for the production of this piece and which is typied by its esteem for both cryptic and allusive knowledge. e somewhat foreboding narratives of death (and sometimes of rebirth) that this mirror and its iconography can evoke t very well within this intellectual milieu. Take, for example, the following excerpt from the answers that the philosopher Secundus the Silent is said to have given to a series of questions put to him by the emperor Hadrian: What is Man? Mind clothed in esh, a vessel containing spirit, a receptacle for senseperception, a toil-ridden spirit, a temporary dwelling-place, a phantom in the mirror of time, an organism tted with bones, a scout on the trail of life, Fortune’s plaything, a good thing that does not last, one of life’s expenditures, an exile from life, a deserter of the light, something that earth will reclaim, a corpse forever. What is Beauty? A picture drawn by Nature, a self-made blessing, a short-lived piece of good fortune, a possession that does not stay with us, the pious man’s ruin, an accident of the esh, the minister to pleasures, a ower that withers, an uncompounded product, the desire of men. (Translation aer Perry ) We see from these paragraphs that reected images and physical beauty are ambivalent concepts. It may well be that this ambivalence would have readily come to mind to whoever used this mirror, showing as it does the beautiful companion of Hadrian paired with a symbol of the god who likewise passed through death into immortal life.
70
S H
A
I am grateful to my colleagues at the ANS for their discussions about this piece and to the reviewer for bibliographic suggestions.
I C
. American Numismatic Society .. . Jameson , plate . American Numismatic Society .. . Triton VIII, January , lot (courtesy of Classical Numismatics Group) . Mowat , plate IV.. . Triton VIII, January , lot (courtesy of Classical Numismatics Group)
R
Alföldi, A., and E. Alföldi. . Die Kontorniat-Medaillons. Antike Münzen und geschnittene Steine . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Baratte, F. . La vaiselle d’argent en Gaule dans l’antiquité tardive. Paris: Boccard. Bartsch, S. . e mirror of the self. Sexuality, self-knowledge, and the gaze in early Roman art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blum, G. . Numismatique d’Antinoos. Journal international d’archéologie numismatique : –. Bruhn [missing – please provide] Burrell, B. . Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman emperors. Cincinnati Classical Studies (new series) . Leiden: Brill. Chabouillet, A. . Catalogue général des camées et pierres gravées de la Bibliothèque impériale. Paris: Cabinet des Médailles. Chavane, M.-J. . La necropole d’Amathonte tombes --IV: Les petits objets. Études Chypriotes . Nicosie. Colomo, D. . Herakles and the Eleusinian mysteries: P Mil. Vogl. I , – revisited. Zeitschri für Papyrologie und Epigraphik : –. Comstock, M., and C. Vermeule. . Greek, Etruscan, and Roman bronzes in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. Davis, J. . e search for origins of the Villa of Mysteries frieze. In: E. Gazda, ed., e Villa of the Mysteries in Pompeii. Ancient ritual, modern muse, pp. –. Ann Arbor: e Kelsey Museum of Archaeology. De Grummond, N. . Mirrors, marriage, and mysteries. In: Pompeian brothels, Pompeii’s ancient history, mirrors and mysteries, art and nature at Oplontis, and
Box Mirror Made from Antinous Medallions
71
the Herculaneum “Basilica”, pp. –. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series . Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology. Doueihi, M. . Cor ne edito. MLN : –. Elsner, J. . Naturalism and the erotics of the gaze: intimations of Narcissus. In: N. Kampen et al., eds., Sexuality in ancient art, pp. –. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. Gnecchi, F. a. Usi ed abusi dei medaglioni e delle monete in genere. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica : –. ———. b. Bronzi unilaterali e prove di conio. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica : –. Harland, P. . Spheres of contention, claims of pre-eminence: rivalries among associations in Sardis and Smyrna. In: R. Ascough, ed., Religious rivalries and the struggle for success in Sardis and Smyrna, pp. –, –. Studies in Christianity and Judaism . Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Hutchinson, G. O. . e metamorphosis of Metamorphosis: P. Oxy. and Ovid. Zeitschri für Papyrologie und Epigraphik : –. IvG: Petzl, G. . Die Inschrien von Smyrna. Inschrien griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien . Bonn: Habelt. Jameson : Collection R. Jameson Tome III. Suite des monnaies grecques antique et imperials romaines. Paris: Feudarent Frères. Jonsson, E. . Le miroir: naissance d’un genre littéraire. Paris: Belles-Lettres. Klose, D. . Die Münzpragung von Smyrna in der römische Kaiserzeit. Antike Münzen und geschnittene Steine . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Leader-Newby, R. . Silver and society in late antiquity. Aldershot: Ashgate. Lebek, W. . Ein Hymnus auf Antinoos Mitford (e inscriptions of Kourion No. ). Zeitschri für Papyrologie und Epigraphik (): –. Meyer, H. . Antinoos: Die archäologischen Denkmäler unter Einbeziehung des numismatischen und epigraphischen Materials sowie der literarischen Nachrichten: ein Beitrag zur Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte der hadrianisch-frühantoninischen Zeit. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Mowat, R. . Contributions à la théorie des medallions de bronze romains. Rivista Italiana di Numismatica : –. Mudie Cooke, P. . e paintings of the Villa Item at Pompeii. Journal of Roman Studies : –. Pépin, J. . Plotinus et le miroir de Dionysos. Revue International de Philosophie : –. Perry, B. . Secundus, the silent philosopher. Philological Monographs . Ithaca, N.Y.: American Philological Association. Raeder [missing – please provide] Stewart, A. . Reections. In: N. Kampen et al., eds., Sexuality in ancient art, pp. –. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
72
S H
Vermeule [missing – please provide] Vout, C. . Antinous, archaeology, and history. Journal of Roman Studies : –. Webb, J. . Corpus of Cypriote Antiquities : Cypriote Antiquities in Australian Collections I. SIMA : . Jonsered: Paul Åströms.