From the ad Herennium, a sample piece of rhetoric that articulates gender differences with regard to motivating passions:

When our ancestors condemned a woman for one crime, they considered that by this single judgement she was convicted of many transgressions. How so? Judged unchaste, she was also deemed guilty of poisoning.Why? Because, having sold her body to the basest passion, she had to live in fear of many persons. Who are these? Her husband, her parents, and the others involved, as she sees, in the infamy of her dishonour. And what then? Those whom she fears so much she would inevitably wish to destroy. Why inevitably? Because no honourable motive can restrain a woman who is terrified by the enormity of her crime, emboldened by her lawlessness, and made heedless by the nature of her sex. Well now, what did they think of a woman found guilty of poisoning? That she was necessarily also unchaste? Why? because no motive could more easily have led her to this crime than base love and unbridled lust. Furthermore, if a woman’s soul had been corrupted, they did not consider her body chaste. Now then, did they observe this same principle with respect to men? Not at all. And why? Because men are driven to each separate crime by a different passion, whereas a woman is led into all crimes by one sole passion.

Quintilian associates the connection of poisoning and unchasity to the judgement of Cato (the elder?  perhaps more likely than the younger? – must check current opinion…):

If an adulteress is on her trial for poisoning, is she not already to be regarded as condemned by the judgment of Marcus Cato, who asserted that every adulteress was as good as a poisoner?

Also compare Quintilian’s many examples regarding the difference between proof and indications, and how one thinks about the quality of evidence.  A large number have to do with the sexual activity of women or the morality of ‘womanish’ men!

[Why is this sort of post here?  I sometimes teach Sex and Gender in Antiquity and thus I’m always interested in useful teaching examples.]

note to self:  Why is it so useful to talk about sex and policing of gender roles when teaching rhetoric?  Is there a paper in that somewhere?

Personifications especially of cities become a major part of numismatic iconography.  At some point I want to return to this detailed treatment of the subject from a literary perspective focusing on Republican texts.

This portion of the ad Herrenium (a rhetorical handbook and one of our early substantial Latin prose works, pre dating the Ciceronian corpus) is often quoted in books about Memory.  Not so much by historians of the republic.  One of the most read authors on Memory, Yates, speculates that the scene may have been witnessed by the author either in real life or on the stage.

I’m of the opinion that this would be a very poor teaching example if both the verse and the imagery were not likely to be familiar to the intended audience.  This is not about the author’s personal experience, but about how oratorical preparation should be done.  Elsewhere, the author certainly picks known images.

I suspect the story come from the narration of how plebeians or Romans more generally in some specific context won the right not to be flogged.  This right was a very slow evolution over centuries and an extension of the rights of provocatio and made on the analogy to protections from summary execution.  Oakley gives a good concise summary of the evidence:

Here’s the coin (RRC 301/1) under discussion:

As an aside Brennan thinks the Marcii Reges were patrician (p. 901):

This translation of a fragment of a Cato’s against Thermus’s Triumph is from an essay by Sciarrino (p.58):

This is a translation of the only surviving fragment from Cato’s speech on King Attalus and the tributes of Asia (Image links to source):

6 Even before that Bocchus had married a daughter of Jugurtha, but such a tie is not considered very binding among the Numidians and Mauri, since each of them has as many wives as his means permit — some ten, others more, and kings a still greater number. 7 Thus their affection is distributed among a large number; none of the wives is regarded as a consort, but all are equally misprised.

Sal. Jug. 80.6-7

Interesting in light of how important political connections through marriage were in the late republic, esp. Pompey’s marriage to Julia.

This is from Arthur Evan’s 1883 publication of his time in Illyria (Illyricum).  This plate comes between p.44-45.

We can compare the shape of the ritual knives (culter?) found at Aufidena:

Similar shaped sacrificial knives are reported in ritual deposits at Bolsena in the 1906 report:

I am at a quandary how to read this token type and its later legacy.  I think its ambiguity may be intentional.

The Legends Read:

“United for the Reform of Parliament 1795”

“May Slavery and Oppression Cease Throughout the World”

And (not visible in the image above) around the edge: “An Asylum for the Oppress’d of all Nations”

This token is a rarer variety of this more common issue without the clasped hands:

The figure on the left is older as indicated by his beard he shows a three youth how easy it is to break a single twig with his bare hands, while bundle of sticks at their feet could not thus be broken (fasces imagery?!).  The composition (but not the metaphor?) is inspired by a Roman seal ring type:

I became interested in the London Corresponding Society for the actions of 29 June 1795, particularly the use of stamped biscuits with slogans as a means for disseminating their message:

On the biscuits targeted at the masses gathered at the protest, slavery is metaphorical, not literally an abolitionist message.  As an interesting aside I think it likely that it was this character, Adam Steinmetz of Limehouse, who was on trial with other members of the Society in October who likely produced said biscuits:

Does this mean that slavery was always metaphoric when used in the rhetoric of the society?  Not so:

In short it was advantageous in many ways to the cause of parliamentary reform to link themselves with the abolitionist movement and there was a significant overlap between the two groups.  However, the parliamentary reform movement, held just that, better democracy in British government, to be the highest end goal, not the abolition of slavery, which would be only a reflection of the enactment of democracy.

Why does this matter?  Because at the same time, perhaps in the same work shop, were being made abolitionist tokens such as these:

links to acsearch.info

A nice illustration of the Pantograph technique:

Napoleon certain  cultivated an Augustan image on his numismatic portraiture, but I think the designer of this type had been strongly influence by coins of the Marsic Confederation struck during the rebellion of Italy against Rome.

Here’s one more Napoleonic Specimen with a slightly different obverse.

 

On this type, CRRO 509, The identification of the bird as a totemic of Juno Sospita and thus a crow based on literary sources has been widely accepted (see scholarship snippets below; snippets link to originals).  I disagree.  The bird is not perched on the goddess’ shoulder but atop her shield.  Below her shield the terminus end of a rod may be seen.  The bird would appear to any contemporary viewer during the Roman civil wars as legionary eagle, part of the standards of any legion:

In fact legionary eagles and standards are particularly popular as coin types during times of civil war and particularly for campaign coinages.  The types were first developed in 82/81 BCE and revitalized and further developed post 49 BCE.  It’s presence is explained on this coin by the moneyer’s claim to be an Imperator.

A bit of scholarship on the whole crow thing:

Further note to self:  When discussing this series in future be sure to comment on the African Obverses Juxtaposed against the Italic Reverses.

In a previous post, I claimed there were only two falcata’s represented on the republican coin series.  I’m not positive of about this identification here, but I will say that I think it highly likely that the representation of two different sword types on the trophy is intended to identify for the viewer what ethnicity has been defeated.