Vesta's veil? Or Vesta's hair?

I have recently acquired a fairly battered but nonetheless, I hope, a fairly interesting denarius of L. Cassius Longinus, younger brother of the C. Cassius Longinus who was one of Caesar's assassins.



What interested me about this coin was the depiction of the veil. I believe this is an example of the kind of denarius found in this issue which RBW referred to when he wrote:

On this die, Vesta's veil appears as hair [RBW 1494]
​

When he wrote that, he was referring to this example below, in far finer condition than mine but showing closely comparable (though plainly not identical) vertical striations resembling hair.

Numismatica Ars Classica NAC AG, Auction 63 Lot 270, see https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=1274869​

As I pondered this, I came to a sticky question. Why would anyone think it was appropriate to depict the goddess Vesta, herself a frightening and powerful goddess with a cult role of huge importance to the prosperity of the Roman state, with this lank mess of loose hair? Such dishevelment is potentially appropriate for mourning but there is no reason to invoke that explanation here. At this point I started to ponder. Given what we know of the rules and regulations governing Vestals' appearances, it seems mighty odd for their patron deity to appear so untidy, for want of a better word.

Vestals were obligated to maintain a series of strict rules and taboos, including ones about dress; amongst the ones relevant for our question are:

• The wearing of their hair in the religiously mandated style of seni crines or six loose locks (probably: the precise meaning is not absolutely certain).
• The wearing of the infula, a particular type of headband suggesting a Roman matrona (and thus a decorous and proper female)
• The wearing of the suffibulum or bride-like veil (intimating modesty, as well as resonating with their enforced chastity).

If we look at my coin or that of RBW's, more clearly, we can see the infula bridging the gap between forehead and hairline. Now if we compare a more normative coin from this issue (below), we can see the suffibulum plainly, and the infula a little forward of it. In both the veil and hair type, there is peeping out also the characteristic hair-roll of the goddess familiar from marble imagery, though there only in a well-marshalled hint. Together, in the clear veil examples, the message is one of the usual appearance of the goddess, who is further characterised as modest and proper.

Leu Numismatik, Auction 4, Lot 570. See https://www.acsearch.info/search.html?id=5992481
​

So we have an apparent contradiction: some coins show the standard, modest goddess. Some show her in a wild, almost maenadic style, though with modest hair-roll and infula.

At this point I wanted to see what the literature said. As luck would have it as recently as 2016 there appeared an article introducing this variant; whilst predominantly arguing for the presence of hair (and espléndida at that), it did concede:

De hecho, se puede observar en varios ejemplares de esta acuñación que el velo presenta numerosos plieges que podrían ser tomados por una cabellera. Ciertamente, es una apreciación subjetiva, derivada del trabajo del abridor de cuños, pero que creemos interesante observar. [p228]
Valverde, L. A. (2016) "Nueva variente de denario de L. Casio Longino" in Numisma, 260: 227-3.
​

I think, ultimately, that in what Valverde concedes as a possibility in this article must in fact lie the solution to the apparent problem. Ultimately, and pace RBW, it is "una apreciación subjetiva"; the problem arises from a subjective interpretation of the image as one showing hair. It disappears if we interpret it as the veil. Which, then, does the iconography support?

For me the shape of the rear of the figure's hair/veil area shows the presence of a (wholly appropriate) chignon; such a hint would be eminently appropriate, and what one should expect to be under the suffibulum. By contrast, if we see this as hair, it would suggest a lack of familiarity with normative female head shapes that it is challenging to ascribe to such an otherwise observant die-cutter. Again, if we see the hair/veil as loose hair, this is aberrant and significant yet unsupported by the surrounding iconography. Unbound hair carries a variety of connotations in the Roman mind, from the erotic to the ecstatic, but all of them suggest a noteworthy state, and none of them are appropriate here. Unbound hair is shocking: it presents a woman in a state of serious and symbolic déshabillé, but there is to be found no solution to the consequent problem of to what end is Vesta so depicted? These problems do not exist if we see it as a veil, albeit a thin, odd and clinging one.

The upshot of this is that I think my interesting variant has evaporated and is simply the extreme end of a continuum of veil-types, ranging from the more numerous thick-and-foil-like to the more noticeable clinging-and-diaphanous. I think RBW's phrasing is apposite: it appears as hair - but cannot be for the reasons so discussed. This would explain why the thicker, more obviously fabric veil types predominate in this issue and otherwise. The attempt is unsuccessful, apt to misinterpretation and is selected against in later imagery.

But perhaps you think I've got it wrong and that it is definitely hair? I'd welcome any thoughts, and I'm very happy to be told I've got it all wrong. I'd be very interested to hear your opinions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

...lQQks like hair to me..

 

Absolutely. To me too. But I don't think it can be. I'd argue that the burden of proof lies in evidencing the abnormal rather than the expected, and what it looks like to our modern eyes is only an imperfect tool for interpretation of ancient imagery.

 

..i've looked at(bid on) a lot of these coins....but most i've seen there wasn't a argument on the top knot....it's a kool RR coin either way

 

A very interesting discussion, and an impressive degree of research. I'd never seen that wild-hair version.

I have one of these - to me it looks definitely like a veil, but with lots of striations, but not really "hair-like":


Roman Republic Denarius
L. Cassius Longinus
(63 B.C.) Rome Mint
Veiled and diademed head of Vesta left, cup, control letter "I" (?) before / Togate citizen std. left w. ballot inscribed "V" & voting box, LONGIN•III•V behind.
Crawford 413/1; Cassia 10.
(3.89 grams / 18 mm)

 

def veil

 

In Michael Harlan's book Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins 63 BCE - 49 BCE (2nd ed. 2015), Ch. 6 (pp. 49-53), he illustrates four examples of this coin with varying degrees of striations in the veil. The fourth example, at p. 53, is the same coin from NAC Auction 63 shown in the OP. Harlan describes it as follows: "On this rare variety, the veil of Vesta is depicted like hair." So he agrees with @clem.fandango.

 

Sorry @DonnaML, let me clarify. I think Harlan here is following RBW. I see the argument that it is hair but don't believe it is hair. I think it is a strangely depicted veil. I don't believe in the hair variant.

 

..well clem....this may be something you'll take up with your mental or spiritual adviser....

 

Haha, very good @ominus1. If I could flip it round, why do you believe it is hair? Why did they cut hair looking like this in this one issue? Can you show me parallel examples of a loose-haired Vesta? Of a loose-haired Roman goddess?

In fact when I think of loose-haired females I think of Cr 448/3 showing the dishevelled Gallia. The loose hair there points to mourning and defeat of this personified land. Hardly something that helps us understand this Vesta...

 

Harlan is not arguing that it's hair. He's saying that it's a veil that looks like hair. He agrees with you.

 

We're all agreed that most show the veil. I dispute that the weird looking ones are hair. I think they're all veil

Ah, my apologies, I had misread your comment. Many thanks!

 

That raises the question of who was the ornatrix of the goddesses?

 

If you describe your coin as "fairly battered," you haven't seen mine...

This denarius has horrible surfaces, but the veil looks quite clearly like a veil on it:

Roman Republic, moneyer: L Cassius Longinus, AR denarius, 63 BC, Rome mint. Obv: veiled head of Vesta (or Vestal Virgin) l.; behind, culullus; before, retrograde S (control mark); multiple banker's marks. Rev: voter standing I., dropping tablet marked V into cista; on r., LONGIN III V downwards. 19.5mm, 3.56g. Ref: RRC 413/1.