Is there anything more macho than the emperor as VIRTVS?

On the theory that all threads need an Eastern Severus, below is the best breast of my Virtute coins from "Emesa". Note the proper use of the standard Virtus pose.


The Severus Alexander is clearly marked Mars and is fully cuirassed. Mars is usually nude but this one used armor.


Virtus is never nude other than the one breast. That said, it is perfectly OK for a nude Mars to appear on a coin with Virtus legend like this Philip II from the officina marked series.


I once saw that one sold as a Virtus because of the legend. All that means is not all sellers that own the references look coins up in them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Donna,

To repeat: the gender of the noun obviously and logically determines the sex of the personification.

Do you really want to posit an exception to this rule merely because Virtus' hair in the one Republican type only falls to the bottom of her neck, therefore a male rather than a female figure must be intended?

 

No, not at all. I'm just asking questions to make sure that there is no exception! I would call it trying to play devil's advocate -- apparently not very successfully.

 

Last night I was browsing the finds.org.uk website guide to Roman coins, which looks like it's intended to aid metal detectors, and is apparently run by the British Museum. In the website's guide to "reverse personifications," at https://finds.org.uk/romancoins/personifications/named/as/Virtus , here's the description of Virtus:

I don't know if whoever wrote this decided that Virtus is male because they lifted this description from David Sear, or reached that conclusion independently. How they account for her bare breast in all her portrayals -- often extremely obvious -- or the fact that "Virtus" is grammatically feminine, or the fact that every other authority agrees that the personification of Virtus is female, I have no idea.

@curtislclay, do you think the British Museum might be open to persuasion that this characterization of Virtus is inaccurate? I wouldn't even begin to know whom to contact. Does anyone here know someone there?

 

From Wikipedia, FWIW:
Note: "Virtus...derived from VIR, their word for man"

 

No opinion on the Virtus male/female debate, although it is interesting.

Here is one from Volusian:


Volusian Antoninianus
(251-253 A.D.)
Rome Mint
IMP CAE C VIB VOLVSIANO AVG radiate, draped and cuirassed bust right / VIRTVS AVGG Virtus standing, head left, holding shield and spear.
RIC 186; RSC 135; Sear 9778.
(3.65 grams / 20 mm)

 

But the word virtus in Latin is feminine. Its etymology has nothing to do with its grammatical gender. Please read the article at Forvm that I cited earlier in this thread.

 

Note the one bare breast. Not something men are portrayed with. It's an Amazonian, female presentation.

 

I dimly recall from high school Latin that there were masculine nouns with feminine endings. There were four of them (from fading memory): Agricola (farmer); poeta (poet); sailor (nauta? Or something like that); and...I forget the fourth one.

 

Part of the problem is our modern simplification of virtus with the single English word "manliness". Entire books have been written in an attempt to define virtus. Here is an interesting excerpt from one:

http://assets.cambridge.org/052182/7884/excerpt/0521827884_excerpt.htm

One observation of this author seems particularly relevant: "So close was the identification of virtus with Rome that when virtus was honored with a state cult, the image chosen for the cult statue was the same as that of the goddess Roma herself: an armed amazon".

 

PROBUS. 276-282 AD. Antoninianus. 23mm. Kyzikos/Cyzicus mint. Obv: IMP C M AVR PROBVS P F AVG. Radiate, helmeted and cuirassed bust left, with shield and spear over shoulder. Rev: VIRTVS PROBI AVG, Probus riding horse left, raising hand and scepter; bound captive to left. Δ below horse, XXIMC in ex. RIC 913.

 

Not Virtus herself, but the emperor embodying the concept of "virtus." See the discussion earlier in the thread.

 

An excerpt to the same general effect from the Google Books preview of the same book -- Myles McDonnell, Roman Manliness - Virtus and the Roman Republic (Cambridge 2006), at p. 149:

 

This is the specific passage from the article at FORVM that I quoted earlier in the thread, addressing the tension inherent in having a female personification of the manliest of virtues, i.e., martial valor -- essentially, manliness itself. See https://www.forumancientcoins.com/moonmoth/reverse_virtus.html :

"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. Here are some. . . ." The article proceeds to give various examples of coins with a VIRTVS reverse legend accompanied by images not of VIRTVS herself but of the emperor, or a soldier, or Mars.

The same article addresses another manifestation of that tension, evident at times even when a coin clearly does show the female personification of Virtus. The author addresses these two images of VIRTVS, holding a parazonium, one of her typical attributes:



Here is what the FORVM article says about these two portrayals of Virtus:

"A parazonium is a longish triangular dagger, wide at the hilt end and coming to a point. It is not carried by every version of Virtus, but it is frequent, particularly on earlier representations. It is also sometimes carried by the emperor, or Mars, or Roma, giving them the aura of courage without needing to say the word.

Who's this long-legged soldierette on the near left, with the big weapon? Virtus again, this time carrying her parazonium. In this typical position it looks rather phallic, and it's hard to believe that this is accidental, though the experts assure me it is a pure coincidence. This is a denarius of Trajan from 114-117 CE.

In the centre, from nearly 100 years later, this denarius of Caracala has an almost identical depiction. This time you can see clearly that the parazonium is carried with the point at her thigh and the handle outwards. Virtus is dressed in a definitely feminised way – look at the long drape at the end of the sleeve and compare with Spes. Although she seems to be wearing trousers, such a barbarous garment is unlikely, and the effect is probably caused by a poor interpretation of the fold-over boot-tops shown on several other Virtus coins on this page."

Personally, I think any expert claiming "coincidence" in the extremely obvious phallic nature of the parazonium -- at least as it is positioned and shaped (i.e., not like a triangle) in these two coins -- is incredibly naive. Especially given the context of the tension inherent in having a female personification of a quintessentially male characteristic. Virtus is already in male "drag" in a sense by the very fact of her portrayal of the manly characteristic of martial valor; adding a very phallic parazonium to her presentation simply takes things one step further -- whether doing so was intentional or a product of the subconscious -- while continuing to signal her femaleness by showing her with one bare breast. (I tend to think that intentionality is more likely. Don't forget that the ancient Greeks and Romans were quite familiar with the idea of combining the two sexes in one being; viz. the many statues of Hermaphroditus.)

Here is a coin of mine in which I think the shape and positioning of the parazonium as held by a female Virtus (with her gender evidenced not only by her bare breast but also by her body shape in general) are even more obviously phallic:

Hadrian, AE Dupondius, 123 AD, Rome Mint. Obv. Radiate head right, IMP CAESAR TRAIANVS HADRIANVS AVG PM TRP COS III / Rev. Virtus standing right, right breast bare, left foot on helmet, holding spear with right hand and parazonium with left hand, VIRTUTI AVGVSTI, S - C across fields. Old RIC II 605 (1926 ed.), Sear RCV II 3670, Cohen 1470, BMCRE 1239. 27 mm., 11.36 g.

 

TRAJAN AR Denarius
OBVERSE: IMP CAES NER TRAIANO OPTIMO AVG GER DAC, laureate draped bust right
REVERSE: P M TR P COS VI P P SPQR, Virtus standing right holding spear & parazonium, foot on helmet
Struck at Rome, 99-100 AD
2.8g, 19mm
RIC 355v, C 274c anecdotal

MN. AQUILLIUS ROMAN REPUBLIC; GENS AQUILLIA
AR Denarius
OBVERSE: VIRTVS III VIR ; Helmeted bust of Virtus right.
REVERSE: MN AQVIL M N F MN N SICIL in ex.; The consul Man. Aquillius raising Sicilia
Rome 71 BC
3.3g, 19mm
RSC/Aquillia-2, SYD-798

 

The Trajan coin looks like the same one discussed in the Forvm article.

 

Same type anyway.

 

That's what I meant -- I should have said "looks like the same type." Sorry for the ambiguity!

 

That's okay. Made me look twice.