The Trial of the Vestal Virgins and the coins of Q. Cassius Longinus and L. Cassius Longinus (Coin Breakdown #5)

[AncientCoinnoisseur]

This little infographic proved to be quite the monumental task that took me several days of work between research and actual making of everything. I hope you can appreciate it! (And I hope everything is readable, given how large it is!).

The two coins on top are from my personal collection, while all the others were found on the internet 🙂

English is not my first language, so I apologise in advance for any mistakes.

Please let me know what you think!

A.C.

 

EDIT: Of course I made a small mistake! The dissent was expressed with either A or AP (not AQ). The rest should be fine 🙂

Edited July 31 by AncientCoinnoisseur
Small mistake

[TIF]

Fantastic presentation!  Bookmarking as a reference :).

[Kali]

Very well laid out and professionally done. I'm saving it for future use, should I venture more into Republic coinage.

[AncientCoinnoisseur]

1 hour ago, TIF said:

Fantastic presentation!  Bookmarking as a reference :).

Thank you, glad you liked it!!! I plan on making more, but I'll take a short break, this took way too long!

 

1 hour ago, Kali said:

Very well laid out and professionally done. I'm saving it for future use, should I venture more into Republic coinage.

Thank you, I'm happy you found it useful! 

[Dafydd]

Superb thank you.

Here is my Longinus.

Roman Republic - L. Cassius Longinus - Silver denarius , Rome mint, 63 B.C.

Head of Vesta left, wearing veil and diadem; L to left, calix to right.

Voter standing left, dropping tablet marked 'V' into cista on right; LONGIN III downwards to right.

Crawford 413/1; Sydenham 935; RSC Cassia 10.

And here is the brother you mention.

CRAWFORD 500/5 RSC 6

Ex Dix Noonan Webb 2020.

I found your information on the coded coiners initials particularly fascinating.

Thank you for sharing!

[AncientCoinnoisseur]

1 minute ago, Dafydd said:

Superb thank you.

Here is my Longinus.

Roman Republic - L. Cassius Longinus - Silver denarius , Rome mint, 63 B.C.

Head of Vesta left, wearing veil and diadem; L to left, calix to right.

Voter standing left, dropping tablet marked 'V' into cista on right; LONGIN III downwards to right.

Crawford 413/1; Sydenham 935; RSC Cassia 10.

And here is the brother you mention.

CRAWFORD 500/5 RSC 6

Ex Dix Noonan Webb 2020.

I found your information on the coded coiners initials particularly fascinating.

Thank you for sharing!

Fantastic, I actually need a Cassius one, so that I can have all the brothers reunited 🙂 And nice Longinus, way sharper than mine! If we all come together maybe we can spell his name, you should have the 'I', right? I have the L 🙂 BTW, despite the fact that mine is way more worn, I actually like the flowing hair, and the fact that it is quite colorful.

[Dafydd]

5 minutes ago, AncientCoinnoisseur said:

Fantastic, I actually need a Cassius one, so that I can have all the brothers reunited 🙂 And nice Longinus, way sharper than mine! If we all come together maybe we can spell his name, you should have the 'I', right? I have the L 🙂 BTW, despite the fact that mine is way more worn, I actually like the flowing hair, and the fact that it is quite colorful.

Yes I have the "I", that would be a novel reunion!

[Sulla80]

[DonnaML]

Wonderful presentation, @AncientCoinnoisseur!

Here's my example of the Lucius Cassius Longinus, together with my write-up. I have bid on several examples of the other coin, always unsuccessfully to date!

Roman Republic, L. Cassius Longinus, AR Denarius, 63 or 60 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Veiled and diademed head of Vesta left, control-letter “A” before her, kylix (two-handled cup) behind her / Rev. Togate figure standing left, dropping a voting tablet favorable to proposed legislation, inscribed “V” (Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”]) into a cista before him, LONGIN III•V downwards behind him. Crawford 413/1, RSC I Cassia 10 (ill.), Sear RCV I 364 (ill.), Sydenham 935, Harlan, RRM II Ch. 6 at pp.49-53, BMCRR 3929 (control-letter “A”); see also id. 3930-3936 (other control letters). 3.96 g., 19 mm., 6 h.  Purchased Jan. 25, 2021 from Ancient Resource (Gabriel Vandervort), Montrose, CA. Formerly in NGC slab, Cert. No.4280866-009, Graded Ch. XF, Strike: 4/5, Surface 4/5.*

 

*Crawford & RSC date the coin to 63 BCE, Harlan dates it to 60 BCE based on hoard evidence (see Ch. 6 at p. 49), and Sear notes the different dates but offers no opinion (see Sear RCV I at p. 141).

Crawford identifies the moneyer as the L. [Lucius] Cassius Longinus who was proconsul in 48 BCE (see Vol. I p. 440), and was the brother of Gaius Cassius Longinus, Caesar’s assassin. Harlan argues against this identification on the ground that the assassin’s brother would have been too young (in his early 20s) to be the moneyer of this coin, and concludes that the moneyer was someone otherwise unknown. (See pp. 50-51.)  Regardless of the specific identity of the moneyer, all authorities note that he omitted express mention of his nomen, Cassius (from the gens Cassia), and his praenomen, L. (for Lucius) from the coin, mentioning only his cognomen, Longinus, on the reverse. He was the only Republican moneyer from the gens Cassia to do so. Instead, he disclosed his praenomen and nomen by means of the control-letters on the obverse: the only control-letters used spell out his praenomen and nomen, as L CASSI (with one S reversed). See Sear RCV I at p. 141, Crawford at p. 440, Harlan at pp. 49-50. (See Crawford 362/1 at p. 377 for a discussion of the other known example of a moneyer spelling out his name via control-letters, the denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus).  Harlan suggests that this moneyer’s reason for omitting his praenomen and nomen from the coin may have been to avoid confusion with another Lucius Cassius Longinus, praetor in 66 BCE, who had been condemned as a participant in the so-called Catiline conspiracy, exposed in 63 BCE, only two years earlier (according to Harlan’s dating of the coin).  See Harlan at p. 50.

The “III•V” at the end of the reverse inscription stands for “IIIVIR” or triumvir. See the Numiswiki entry for IIIVIR, at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR: “On coins of the Roman Republic IIIVIR is used as a shortened abbreviation for IIIVIR AAAFF, which abbreviates "III viri aere argento auro flando feiundo" or "Three men for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold," a moneyer or mint magistrate.”

The veiled depiction on the obverse of this coin is generally taken to be a portrayal of Vesta despite the absence of an inscription to that effect. Note the kylix cup behind her head, similar to the bowl in Vesta’s hands on Crawford 512/2, as well as the similarity of the portrait to the specifically identified portrait of a veiled Vesta on Crawford 428/1, issued by Quintus Cassius Longinus in 53 BCE -- also with a voting scene on the reverse. (But see the equally similar veiled portrait specifically identified as Concordia on a denarius issued by Lepius Paullus in 62 BCE, Crawford 415/1.) 

Crawford assumes without discussion that the obverse portrait depicts Vesta, and concludes that her portrayal on the obverse, taken together with the voting scene on the reverse, constitute a reference to the election in 113 BCE of another member of the Cassius gens, Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as a special prosecutor to retry two acquitted Vestal Virgins (one of the three originally charged was convicted the first time) on allegations of breaking their vows. They were convicted on retrial and buried alive as punishment. See Crawford p. 440; Harlan at p. 182-183 (discussing the voting scene on the reverse of Crawford 428/1).  

In BMCRR, on the other hand, Grueber concluded that the reverse type commemorated the passage in 137 BCE of the Lex Cassia tabelleria, proposed by the same Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as tribune of the plebs, to curb the power of the nobility by expanding the recently-instituted secret ballot law to trials held before the people.  (See BMCRR Vol. I p. 494.)  If one thing is clear, it is that unlike Crawford 328/1, the reverse of this coin cannot refer to the retrial of the Vestal Virgins itself, since the scene on this reverse depicts a legislative vote (determined by votes of Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”] or Antiquo [= “I vote against it”]), rather than a trial, as depicted on the reverse of Crawford 328/1 (determined by votes of Absolvo [= “I absolve”] or Condemno [= “I acquit”]).

Harlan adopts neither view, arguing as follows (see pp. 52-53):

“We should ask if we want to assign this depiction of voting to the passage of one specific law. By the time this coin was minted it was not the specifics of Longinus’ law that people recalled, but that voting tablet laws represented the liberation of the people from the oppression of the nobility [Quotation from Cicero’s speech Pro Sestio, concerning the voting tablet law of 137 BCE, omitted.] . . . . Our moneyer’s coin reminded the people how his family had traditionally championed the people’s interests over the nobility’s and how their interests have been furthered through constitutional means rather than violent revolution which threatens the interest of all citizens. The recent involvement of a Cassius Longinus in Cataline’s attempt to effect change through violent revolution was not representative of the true values of the Cassii Longini.”

Finally, although the coin was unaccompanied by any pedigree other than formerly having been in an NGC slab, the rather peculiarly-shaped "A" control-letter on the obverse, directly above the drapery on Vesta's far shoulder, closely resembles the ones on these specimens in the Schaefer Roman Republican Die Project; see http://numismatics.org/archives/ark:/53695/schaefer.rrdp.processed_400-499#schaefer_clippings_output_413_A_sd , column 5, categorized by Schaefer as type 16A:

 

 

Edited August 1 by DonnaML

[AncientCoinnoisseur]

4 hours ago, Sulla80 said:

Wow, nice one!!!

 

1 hour ago, DonnaML said:

Wonderful presentation, @AncientCoinnoisseur!

Here's my example of the Lucius Cassius Longinus, together with my write-up. I have bid on several examples of the other coin, always unsuccessfully to date!

Roman Republic, L. Cassius Longinus, AR Denarius, 63 or 60 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Veiled and diademed head of Vesta left, control-letter “A” before her, kylix (two-handled cup) behind her / Rev. Togate figure standing left, dropping a voting tablet favorable to proposed legislation, inscribed “V” (Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”]) into a cista before him, LONGIN III•V downwards behind him. Crawford 413/1, RSC I Cassia 10 (ill.), Sear RCV I 364 (ill.), Sydenham 935, Harlan, RRM II Ch. 6 at pp.49-53, BMCRR 3929 (control-letter “A”); see also id. 3930-3936 (other control letters). 3.96 g., 19 mm., 6 h.  Formerly in NGC slab, Cert. No.4280866-009, Graded Ch. XF, Strike: 4/5, Surface 4/5.*

 

*Crawford & RSC date the coin to 63 BCE, Harlan dates it to 60 BCE based on hoard evidence (see Ch. 6 at p. 49), and Sear notes the different dates but offers no opinion (see Sear RCV I at p. 141).

Crawford identifies the moneyer as the L. [Lucius] Cassius Longinus who was proconsul in 48 BCE (see Vol. I p. 440), and was the brother of Gaius Cassius Longinus, Caesar’s assassin. Harlan argues against this identification on the ground that the assassin’s brother would have been too young (in his early 20s) to be the moneyer of this coin, and concludes that the moneyer was someone otherwise unknown. (See pp. 50-51.)  Regardless of the specific identity of the moneyer, all authorities note that he omitted express mention of his nomen, Cassius (from the gens Cassia), and his praenomen, L. (for Lucius) from the coin, mentioning only his cognomen, Longinus, on the reverse. He was the only Republican moneyer from the gens Cassia to do so. Instead, he disclosed his praenomen and nomen by means of the control-letters on the obverse: the only control-letters used spell out his praenomen and nomen, as L CASSI (with one S reversed). See Sear RCV I at p. 141, Crawford at p. 440, Harlan at pp. 49-50. (See Crawford 362/1 at p. 377 for a discussion of the other known example of a moneyer spelling out his name via control-letters, the denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus).  Harlan suggests that this moneyer’s reason for omitting his praenomen and nomen from the coin may have been to avoid confusion with another Lucius Cassius Longinus, praetor in 66 BCE, who had been condemned as a participant in the so-called Catiline conspiracy, exposed in 63 BCE, only two years earlier (according to Harlan’s dating of the coin).  See Harlan at p. 50.

The “III•V” at the end of the reverse inscription stands for “IIIVIR” or triumvir. See the Numiswiki entry for IIIVIR, at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR: “On coins of the Roman Republic IIIVIR is used as a shortened abbreviation for IIIVIR AAAFF, which abbreviates "III viri aere argento auro flando feiundo" or "Three men for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold," a moneyer or mint magistrate.”

The veiled depiction on the obverse of this coin is generally taken to be a portrayal of Vesta despite the absence of an inscription to that effect. Note the kylix cup behind her head, similar to the bowl in Vesta’s hands on Crawford 512/2, as well as the similarity of the portrait to the specifically identified portrait of a veiled Vesta on Crawford 428/1, issued by Quintus Cassius Longinus in 53 BCE -- also with a voting scene on the reverse. (But see the equally similar veiled portrait specifically identified as Concordia on a denarius issued by Lepius Paullus in 62 BCE, Crawford 415/1.) 

Crawford assumes without discussion that the obverse portrait depicts Vesta, and concludes that her portrayal on the obverse, taken together with the voting scene on the reverse, constitute a reference to the election in 113 BCE of another member of the Cassius gens, Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as a special prosecutor to retry two acquitted Vestal Virgins (one of the three originally charged was convicted the first time) on allegations of breaking their vows. They were convicted on retrial and buried alive as punishment. See Crawford p. 440; Harlan at p. 182-183 (discussing the voting scene on the reverse of Crawford 428/1).  

In BMCRR, on the other hand, Grueber concluded that the reverse type commemorated the passage in 137 BCE of the Lex Cassia tabelleria, proposed by the same Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as tribune of the plebs, to curb the power of the nobility by expanding the recently-instituted secret ballot law to trials held before the people.  (See BMCRR Vol. I p. 494.)  If one thing is clear, it is that unlike Crawford 328/1, the reverse of this coin cannot refer to the retrial of the Vestal Virgins itself, since the scene on this reverse depicts a legislative vote (determined by votes of Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”] or Antiquo [= “I vote against it”]), rather than a trial, as depicted on the reverse of Crawford 328/1 (determined by votes of Absolvo [= “I absolve”] or Condemno [= “I acquit”]).

Harlan adopts neither view, arguing as follows (see pp. 52-53):

“We should ask if we want to assign this depiction of voting to the passage of one specific law. By the time this coin was minted it was not the specifics of Longinus’ law that people recalled, but that voting tablet laws represented the liberation of the people from the oppression of the nobility [Quotation from Cicero’s speech Pro Sestio, concerning the voting tablet law of 137 BCE, omitted.] . . . . Our moneyer’s coin reminded the people how his family had traditionally championed the people’s interests over the nobility’s and how their interests have been furthered through constitutional means rather than violent revolution which threatens the interest of all citizens. The recent involvement of a Cassius Longinus in Cataline’s attempt to effect change through violent revolution was not representative of the true values of the Cassii Longini.”

Finally, although the coin was unaccompanied by any pedigree other than formerly having been in an NGC slab, the rather peculiarly-shaped "A" control-letter on the obverse, directly above the drapery on Vesta's far shoulder, closely resembles the ones on these specimens in the Schaefer Roman Republican Die Project; see http://numismatics.org/archives/ark:/53695/schaefer.rrdp.processed_400-499#schaefer_clippings_output_413_A_sd , column 5, categorized by Schaefer as type 16A:

 

 

This is a FANTASTIC write-up, there is more stuff that I missed! If you do this with every coin you get, I think nobody deserves the other Cassius more than you, so good luck in your hunt! I also try to get as much information as I can about each coin I buy!

[DonnaML]

Thank you, @AncientCoinnoisseur. I try to do this kind of detailed write-up for all my Roman Republican coins, simply because there are so many different authorities to consult regarding the interpretation (historical, iconographic, mythological, etc.) of almost every single individual type, and one often finds that the interpretations vary significantly. Which is why it often takes me a very long time to do these write-ups: my last Roman Republican coin purchase was in January, and although I did all the research long ago, I've been procrastinating with figuring out how to discuss the multiple conflicting interpretations of almost every single aspect of the coin in a comprehensible way without writing a treatise, so I still haven't written it up! 

On the other hand, it's almost never necessary to do lengthy write-ups of Roman Imperial coins, for which one rarely finds multiple  detailed discussions of individual types -- if there are any at all -- and, when one does, the interpretations rarely vary in material ways. For Roman Provincial types, detailed write-ups are necessary more than for Imperial coins, but not nearly as much as Republican coins.

[AncientCoinnoisseur]

32 minutes ago, DonnaML said:

Thank you, @AncientCoinnoisseur. I try to do this kind of detailed write-up for all my Roman Republican coins, simply because there are so many different authorities to consult regarding the interpretation (historical, iconographic, mythological, etc.) of almost every single individual type, and one often finds that the interpretations vary significantly. Which is why it often takes me a very long time to do these write-ups: my last Roman Republican coin purchase was in January, and although I did all the research long ago, I've been procrastinating with figuring out how to discuss the multiple conflicting interpretations of almost every single aspect of the coin in a comprehensible way without writing a treatise, so I still haven't written it up! 

On the other hand, it's almost never necessary to do lengthy write-ups of Roman Imperial coins, for which one rarely finds multiple  detailed discussions of individual types -- if there are any at all -- and, when one does, the interpretations rarely vary in material ways. For Roman Provincial types, detailed write-ups are necessary more than for Imperial coins, but not nearly as much as Republican coins.

I perfectly understand! That is so cool though, so much work! My only other republican coins are the Caesar elephant denarius and the T Carisius denarius with the minting tools. Do you happen to have write-ups on those as well? 🙂

[DonnaML]

38 minutes ago, AncientCoinnoisseur said:

I perfectly understand! That is so cool though, so much work! My only other republican coins are the Caesar elephant denarius and the T Carisius denarius with the minting tools. Do you happen to have write-ups on those as well? 🙂

I'm afraid that I own neither!

[Sulla80]

21 hours ago, AncientCoinnoisseur said:

Wow, nice one!!

Nice write-up @AncientCoinnoisseur - I also enjoy research on coins and their history.  Here are my notes:

https://www.sullacoins.com/post/prelude-to-munda

[AncientCoinnoisseur]

3 hours ago, Sulla80 said:

Nice write-up @AncientCoinnoisseur - I also enjoy research on coins and their history.  Here are my notes:

https://www.sullacoins.com/post/prelude-to-munda

Thank you for that, I always appreciate additional information to go with my coins! It makes them way more interesting!

[Coinmaster]

This is great, looking forward to new overviews!

Attached some info from the great book of Liv Mariah Yarrow: The Roman Republic to 49 BCE, Using Coins as Sources.