Is there anything more macho than the emperor as VIRTVS?

The Latin word virtus means manliness, manhood, strength, vigor, bravery, courage, excellence. And what could be more manly than the emperor as VIRTVS in military attire, holding a spear and a legionary standard?!

It's enough to make you think, "They say this cat Gallienus is a bad mutha ..."

"Shut yo' mouth!"

"I'm talking 'bout Gallienus!"

"We can dig it!"

but then you look at the cartoonish, boyish figure on the reverse ...

and, well ...

you think "not exactly ..."


Gallienus, AD 253-268.
Roman billon antoninianus, 3.61 g, 21.1 mm, 12 h.
Cologne, AD 257-258.
Obv: GALLIENVS P F AVG, radiate and cuirassed bust, right.
Rev: VIRTVS AVGG, Gallienus in military attire standing right, holding spear and standard.
Refs: RIC 58F; Göbl 8821; Cohen 1309; RCV 10413; Hunter 58; ERIC II 1030.

Post your coins where the design doesn't quite live up to the advertising! Post your "Well ... not exactly" coins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

except when Virtus appears on coins herself, she is a woman, and feminine in Latin grammar. Below is a coin described variously as soldier or emperor but on clear examples you can clearly see one bare breast of Virtus.



Constantius II
A.D. 337- 340
14x16mm 1.3gm
FL IVL CONSTANTIVS AVG; laureate, cuirassed bust right
VIRTVS AVGG NN; Virtus standing holding spear and resting hand on shield.
In ex. TRS
RIC VIII Trier 74

 

Well, the 21st century doesn't have a monopoly on "fake news"...

 

So true!

 

Tiny AE4 of Arcadius, obverse completely worn off. Is this tiny camp gate really the Glory of the Republic? Also Rome was neither a republic nor glorious at the time - discuss amongst yourselves...

 

There is one other thing that bothers me about reverse figures like the Virtus of Gallienus. How did some expert in the past determine that the intent of the die cutter was to show the emperor in all his pencil necked glory? We simply do not know. Was there a young boy hero of a battle that day who made the reverse of a coin but never was recorded in written history? For certain that one will never be proven and has a one in a million chance of being true but the fact remains that we, today, can not go too far saying who 'posed' for that reverse type. ...or was this just the work of an apprentice die cutter who should have found employment elsewhere. People seem to insist on complete labels on coins so we get names on statues when all we have is a standing figure of an uncertain person or rendition of a deity. These are not unretouched photographs admissible in court. They are an artist's rendition of a concept using the available skills for that medium. Certainly we have reverses that show the emperor's face well enough that we have reasonable certainty of the intent. This was not one of them.

Yes, Virtus was a feminine noun and we have trouble accepting the idea of 'manliness' being a woman. Yes, some better examples of Virtus coins show a breast. Many show a figure that could be a soldier, Mars, Virtus (the woman) or the die cutter's pre-school age son dressed up for a party. We do what we can do with what we have but need to avoid getting too worked up over these assumed labels.

I don't have great examples from Gallienus but this denarius of Septimius relatively certainly shows the face of Septimius.




Is this standing figure certainly Caracalla, Septimius, 'the emperor', a priest or just a standing figure? We can label it as we choose. Just don't take your labels so seriously that you insist on everyone else seeing the same thing.

 

I like Virtus depicted as a woman carrying a dagger and spear,as this one.

 

What are we seeing above the breast? It almost looks like tha arm folded back raising the garment folds above the breast but there is also an arm on the spear.

Below is the Septimius Severus 193AD Rome mit version.

 

Pius - Virtus

Diocletian

 

Doug,

Aren't you exaggerating our ignorance just a little?

I would say the figures on your three coins, with near certainty, are:

Septimius, because of his long beard as you point out, and because the legend RESTITVTOR VRBIS is very appropriate for the emperor.

Mars, because no bare breast so not Virtus, and because the emperor very rarely wears a helmet on 1st-3rd cent. AD Roman imperial coins.

Caracalla, because on most of the corresponding coins of Septimius with the numeral XX not X in the rev. legend, the sacrificing figure again wears Septimius' long beard.

 

There is considerable evidence for the ID's but until you find a primary document directing that the reverse type be that, our ID's are reconstructed theories. All the ones you mention here are most likely correct but, remembering the number of Jackie Kennedy wannabes in 1960, it take more than a hair style to be certain.

My favorite is the colossal Trebonianus Gallus or retired gladiator or whatever he is discussed here previously. The Met experts can believe what they wish.

 

I think Allectus had to TELL everyone he was VIRTVS AVG by writing on the reverse...



RI
Allectus 293-296
AE Quinarius London Virtus Galley AE17
London, CE 294-296
16.9 x 18.2 mm 2.31 grams.
Radiate head of Allectus right, with IMP C ALLECTVS P F AVG around
Galley left with VIRTVS AVG around, the mint mark QL below
SEAR 13870. RIC 55.
Ex: Calgary Coins

 

@Roman Collector, here's what confuses me. How do we know -- other than because the catalogues say so -- that the figure on this reverse bearing the legend VIRTVS AVGG is supposed to be Gallienus rather than Virtus herself? How was that determination made? Does the same type of figure appear on other Gallienus reverses with different legends?

After all, not all reverse figures identified as Virtus have a bare breast. I have two coins with reverse figures identified as Virtus, one with a bare breast showing and one without:

Caracalla AR Denarius 210 AD, Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head of Caracalla right, ANTONINVS PIVS AVG BRIT/ Rev. Virtus, helmeted, draped, standing right, right breast bare, left foot on helmet, holding spear in her right hand and parazonium in her left hand, PONTIF TR P XIII COS III. (Thirteenth anniversary as ordained heir.) RIC IV-1 117B, RSC III 478. 19 mm., 3.01 g.


Valerian I, Silvered Billon Antoninianus, 257 AD, Milan Mint. Obv. Radiate, draped, cuirassed bust right, IMP VALERIANVS P AVG/ Rev. Virtus standing left, holding Victory with right hand and resting left hand on shield, with spear propped against left arm, VIRTVS AVGG. RIC V-1 266 var., Goebl 811d,* Cunetio 770 (see https://tinyurl.com/qpb659c). 22.5 mm., 3.4 g.



If Gallienus's father could show a fully-clothed Virtus on the reverse of one of his VIRTUS AUGG coins, why not Gallienus? That would solve the issue of the figure on the reverse of Gallienus's coin being perceived by some as having an insufficiently masculine stance.

* I don't have direct access to Goebl, but this is the description of the coin in Wildwinds: "Goebl 811d Valerian I AR Antoninianus. Milan mint, 257 AD. IMP VALERIANVS P AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right, seen from the back / VIRTVS AVGG, Virtus standing left, holding Victory, shield and spear. Goebl 811d; Chalfont hoard 328; Cunetio 770; Stevenage hoard 529; RIC 267 var." Note that RIC V-1 267 itself identifies the reverse figure as "a soldier," although the Wildwinds example identifies that figure as Virtus.
Cf. the article at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_virtus.html with a number of portrayals of Virtus, all of which do appear to show her with a bare breast. The article points out that for whatever reason, David Sear's RCV volumes incorrectly identify Virtus as a male personification.

 

The legends say VIRTVS AVG, but if I had looked only at the bearded and helmeted figure holding the branch and spear, I would have said MARTI PACIFERO.

GORDIAN III
AR Antoninianus. 4.56g, 24.5mm. Rome mint, AD 240. RIC 56; Cohen 386. O: IMP CAES GORDIANVS PIVS AVG, radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right. R: VIRTVS AVG, Mars standing facing, head left, holding branch and inverted spear; at his feet, grounded shield.
Ex St. Jean d'Ardieres Hoard (Guillaumont-Richard, 9 April 2016, part of lot 180)

 

Upon reflection -- and after looking closely at lots of photos and doing quite a bit of additional research -- I've changed my mind, and no longer believe that the figure (apparently Virtus) on the reverse of the Valerian I antoninianus I posted just above is fully clothed, or can be used as evidence that there's such a thing as a depiction of the female personification of Virtus without a bare breast showing. Here are two different closeups of the reverse:





As you can see from both of these photos, only Virtus's left shoulder is actually covered, and she's definitely not "fully-clothed." Like most depictions of the female personification of Virtus, the right side of her chiton is off her right shoulder and under her right arm, leaving her right side uncovered. (See the entry for "Chiton" in John Melville Jones's Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (London, 1990) at p. 52, defining the term as follows: "The Greek name often used instead of the Latin tunica to describe a tunic, with or without sleeves, usually worn by women but sometimes by men also. Amazons, Roma and Virtus may wear a chiton in such a way as to expose one breast.")

This seems to be the standard depiction of Virtus's clothing, clearly signaling that she's female. See the numerous photos in the article at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_virtus.html, and my Caracalla Virtus reverse, showing her with a very distinct bare right breast, and carrying Virtus's typical parazonium at its typically phallic location and angle:


In any event, looking at the closeups of the Valerian I reverse, either that's a badly-rendered bare right breast or Virtus is wearing a bra -- which I doubt, because I don't think that garment had been invented yet! (The so-called "bikini girls" in the mosaics at the Villa Romana del Casale in Sicily -- see the photos at https://www.ancientworldmagazine.co...ikinis-mosaic-villa-romana-del-casale-sicily/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Romana_del_Casale#/media/File:Villa_romana_bikini_girls.JPG -- were, I believe, wearing what's called a strophium.)

I realize that Virtus's face in the closeups looks almost like the figure has a beard, but I suspect that's just poor artistry. Despite David Sear's continued insistence in the glossary at the front of each volume of the Millennium Edition of Roman Coin Values that Virtus is a male personification, he is in the distinct minority at this point. I have not been able to find a single clearly male depiction of Virtus with a tunic off one shoulder, leaving that side of the chest bare. What would be the point of depicting Virtus's clothing that way, other than to signal that she's female despite the otherwise stereotypically male objects and attributes that she carries and represents? Conversely, now that I've ruled out my Valerian coin, I've been unable to find any depiction of a fully-clothed Virtus that signals femaleness in any other way (as by giving any other indication of breasts), let alone that's unambiguously female.

In any event, I've revised my own personal catalogue's description of my Valerian I VIRTVS AVGG coin to reflect my changed opinion, and to add all the references I could find. As you can see, opinions vary as to whom the reverse figure represents, although the more recent reference works favor Virtus. In addition, this particular coin is not in RIC, RSC, or RCV because the obverse legend differs from the coins listed in those works, so I list it as a variation.

Valerian I, Silvered Billon Antoninianus, 257 AD, Mediolanum [Milan] or Viminacium Mint. Obv. Radiate, draped bust right, IMP VALERIANVS P AVG/ Rev. Virtus standing left, chiton off right shoulder (leaving right breast bare), holding Victory with right hand and resting left hand on shield, with reversed spear propped against left arm, VIRTVS AVGG. RIC V-1 267 (p. 58) obv. leg. var.* [RIC identifies reverse figure as a soldier; Wildwinds identifies reverse figure on RIC 267 as Virtus (see http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/valerian_I/i.html)]; Cohen 258 obv. leg. var. [Cohen identifies figure as Virtus or Roma], RSC IV 258 obv. leg. var. [identifying reverse figure as soldier]; Sear RCV III 9992 obv. leg.var. [identifying reverse figure as Virtus, but characterizing Virtus as male; ascribed to Viminacium Mint] (ill.); Göbl 811d (same obv. leg.) [R. Göbl et al., Moneta Imperii Romani, Band 35: Die Münzprägung des Kaiser Valerianus I / Gallienus / Saloninus / (253/268), Regalianus (260) und Macrianus / Quietus (260/262) (Vienna, 2000)] [identifying reverse figure as Virtus; Viminacium mint]; Cunetio 770 (same obv. leg.) [identifying reverse figure as Virtus] [Besly, E. & R. Bland, The Cunetio Treasure: Roman Coinage of the Third Century AD (London, 1983)]; Adeilson Nogueira, Valeriano, Na Numismatica Romana (Brazil, 2018) at p. 11 (see https://tinyurl.com/qpb659c) [identifying reverse figure as Virtus]; Chalfont hoard 328 [R. Bland, ed., The Chalfont Hoard and Other Roman Coin Hoards, Coin Hoards from Roman Britain IX (London, 1992)]; Stevenage hoard 529 [A.M. Burnett & R.F. Bland, eds., Coin Hoards from Roman Britain: The Normanby Hoard and Other Roman Coin Hoards, CHRB VIII (London, 1988) at pp. 43-73]. 22.5 mm., 3.4 g.

* RIC, RSC, Cohen, and Sear all identify the obverse legend on this coin type as IMP P LIC VALERIANO AVG rather than IMP VALERIANVS P AVG; the coins appear to be otherwise identical to this one. None of them lists a Valerian antoninianus with the IMP VALERIANVS P AVG obverse legend and a reverse with the VIRTVS AVG [RIC V-1 266] or VIRTVS AVGG [RIC V-1 267] legend, and the reverse figure -- however identified -- with spear and shield and holding Victory.

So if Virtus is female, and always -- as far as I can tell -- depicted with her tunic off one shoulder and a bare breast on that side, then does that mean that all the fully-clothed male figures on VIRTVS AVG reverses are not actually Virtus, but instead represent the emperor, Mars, a soldier, etc.? In other words, that Virtus is never male, and always female? Even the article at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_virtus.html, with its many examples of a Virtus with one bare breast, doesn't go quite that far, stating at the outset "Virtus: courage, manliness, power, worth, excellence of character. All the manly and soldierly virtues. And you may read (for example, in David Sear's books) that Virtus is a male personification. This does not appear to be correct, or at least, not always correct. The word "virtus" has the feminine gender, and the personification is often female. This becomes more and more clear as you look at coins that show the personification . . . ."

Perhaps one way of looking at it would be to draw a narrow distinction and to think of the actual personification of "Virtus" per se as being female, while thinking of the many clearly male, fully-clothed figures on VIRTVS AVG reverses as representing the qualities and attributes of "Virtus" -- which, of course, are stereotypically male in the first place; "virtus" is usually translated as "valour" in old numismatic dictionaries and other works -- rather than as being Virtus. As the article at Forum states, "Virtus embodies manly courage and strength of character. There were powerful female figures in Roman culture, but these were generally goddesses like Minerva, not mortals. So, having a female personification of these qualities sometimes presented difficulties to the propagandists. As a result, coins often showed, not Virtus herself, but a soldier or the emperor with a "VIRTVS" legend to indicate that the army, or the emperor, was valorous and manly. In fact, a whole range of characters were brought into play."

One example would be the Caracalla reverse (RCV (2002) 6864; RIC IV 95) shown in the cited article; see the photo at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/coins/caracalla_027.html, with the reverse described as "Emperor standing right, posed as Virtus, reversed spear in right hand behind, parazonium in left hand resting on thigh, left foot on helmet." As the article explains, the reverse "shows Caracalla posing as Virtus. He is dressed in light military gear but does not wear a helmet like Mars, or carry a trophy like Mars and Romulus. Nor is his breast bared! But he does have the spear and is posing with a parazonium, and he is resting his foot on a helmet." So he represents the qualities of Virtus, and comes as close as he can to actually portraying himself as Virtus -- adopting "Virtus drag," as it were -- without taking the one step that unequivocally signals Virtus's femaleness, i.e., showing her bare breast.

I've found only one coin expressly identifying a clearly male figure as actually being Virtus, and it's a coin from the Roman Republic: a denarius from ca. 70 BCE with an obverse depicting the conjoined jugate (and, I believe, unambiguously male) heads of Honos and Virtus right -- expressly identified as such, with "HO" and "VIRT" behind the heads -- representing the two moneyers who issued the coins, Q. Fufius Calenus and P. Mucius Scaevola (Cordus). Crawford 403/1, RSC I Fufia 1, Sear RCV I 338 (ill.) Apparently, there was a temple dedicated to Honos and Virtus together. For an example of this coin, see https://www.coinarchives.com/91764ba588c3ed6b07918297a6158178/img/davisson/039/image00056.jpg

But I've found no Imperial coins expressly depicting Virtus, per se, as male. So I'm going to continue to go with the distinction above, until proven wrong.

 

Donna,

I think Virtus, since the word is feminine, must always be depicted as a female personification, so I can't accept your contention that the helmeted second bust on the Republican denarius is "unambiguously male". Virtus is always shown as a female elsewhere, so she must be female here too!

 

Thanks, @curtislclay; I was hoping you would comment. I would certainly prefer you to be correct, because that one Republican coin would otherwise be a singular exception to what I've concluded is the "rule." I take it that you agree with what I had to say in the rest of my post about about the actual personification of Virtus always being female -- as opposed to men on VIRTVS AVG reverses being depicted as representing the qualities of "virtus," not Virtus herself -- and her being uniformly depicted on coins (including the reverse of my Valerian coin, on which I now realize she isn't fully-clothed after all) as signaling her femaleness by baring one breast?

Do you have any idea why David Sear seems still to insist that Virtus is a male personification? Have you ever known him to attempt to reconcile that view with all those portrayals of Virtus with a bare female breast?

Of course, the problem with the Republican coin is that it only shows Virtus's head, not the entire body. Your argument sort of assumes its own conclusion that the head must be female, based on the lexical argument and on coins that do show Virtus's entire body. Here's one other Republican coin I've found that shows only Virtus's head on the obverse (identified as "VIRTVS"), a denarius of Mn. Aquilias Mn.f. from ca. 71 BCE (Crawford 401/1, Sear RCV I 336 (ill.), RSC I Aquilia 2): https://www.coinarchives.com/5d6268274425ffbcaea6d0ad47a5a77b/img/roma/e70/image01036.jpg . I assume that you would identify this head as female as well -- and the face is certainly androgynous enough to be female -- despite the relatively short hair? Are there other Republican obverses with clearly female individuals on the obverse depicted with hair that short? Females, including Roma, are usually portrayed (to the best of my recollection) either with longer hair or their hair in a bun.

Returning to the first Republican coin, I don't think there's much question that the two obverse heads are intended as a representation or signification of the two moneyers. Can you think of another example of a moneyer specifically portraying himself as signified by a female personification or deity?

Again, your theory is certainly consistent with the evidence from the depiction of Virtus on Imperial coins, so your being correct would make sense, and I hope you are right!

 

Donna,

The grammatical argument is, I think, decisive. Were any other grammatically female qualities, for example Concordia, Felicitas, Justitia, Libertas, Pax, Salus, Securitas, Victoria, ever depicted as male rather than female personifications?

David Sear is not, I think, insisting that Virtus is masculine; it's just an assumption he made in his youth, maybe an older error that he took over from another author, which he has been repeating over the decades because no one has taken the time to point out the mistake to him.

I don't know much about Republican coins, but strongly doubt that the two moneyers on your coin had any intention of representing themselves as Honos and Virtus.

 

You're probably right, Curtis. However, I don't think it's a coincidence that this was the first coin to be jointly issued by two moneyers in a decade (since Sulla's reforms in 81 BCE) (see Harlan, RRM I at p. 147), and portrays not one head but two jugate heads on the obverse -- also, I believe, the first time that was done during that period. Harlan also mentions that Gaius Marius had dedicated a temple to Honos and Virtus -- he refers to them as "these two gods" (id.) -- to commemorate his victory over the Cimbri and Teutoni in 101 (citing Cicero, De Divinatione.) See also https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thaye...ma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Honos_et_Virtus.html#2, discussing that temple at length, with specific reference to the ancient texts. Unfortunately, it says nothing more specific about Honos and Virtus themselves ("Honoris et Virtutis" in Latin) beyond referring to them both as "gods." I certainly don't have time to click on all the links to those ancient texts to see how, if at all, Virtus was described in them!

What about the relatively short hair on Virtus on the other coin?

I'm not arguing with you, just wondering about those two coins, given the androgynousness of the two depictions of Virtus on these Republican coins. By contrast, the other female personifications you mention -- Concordia, Felicitas, Justitia, Libertas, Pax, Salus, Securitas, and Victoria -- were always, to the best of my knowledge, portrayed as unambiguously female. Certainly we're in agreement that that's also the case for Virtus's portrayal on Imperial coins, given her bare breast.