Crawford is misleading in his type description of 428/1 when he says the jug and lituus are connected to the consulship like the eagle. The eagle is better read as imperium, specifically imperium deriving from the Roman people. Broughton believes Cassius was himself an Augur and I tend to agree. (Cic. Att. 9.9.3) The letter well illustrated the power and importance of the position and close connection between religion and constitutional law.
It is of great importance to Caesar that there should not be an interregnum: and that he secures, if the consuls are “created” by the praetor. However, it is on record in our augural books that, so far from consuls being legally capable of being created by a praetor, the praetors themselves cannot be so created, and that there is no precedent for it: that it is illegal in case of the consuls, because it is not legal for the greater imperium to be proposed to the people by the less; in case of the praetors, because their names are submitted to the people as colleagues of the consuls, to whom belongs the greater imperium. Before long he will be demanding that my vote in the college should be given, and he won’t be content with Galba, Scaevola, Cassius, and Antonius…
RRC 428 feels pretty well explained by Crawford. The one point I can’t wrap my head around is what the curule chair is doing on the coin. As far as I can make out, one only gets the chair with imperium. Vestals get lictors, but those are the special religious kind (lictores curiati) which had no fasces and no axes. The other logical explanation would be the chair of L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla (cos. 127) who re-tried the three delinquent Virgins. BUT, he was appointed to hold the quaestio by the people at the instigation of a tribune of the plebs (so Ascon. 46C), so he shouldn’t have had any imperium and certainly not a curule chair!
Vase at Met (Beazley entry).
RRC 430/1, 55 BCE, moneyer is younger son of consul and triumvir.
At first I thought perhaps it might reflect Syrian campaign of his father, but coins are rarely anticipatory. Better to go with Venus Victrix and a reference to Pompey’s far Eastern conquests.
Said to be from near Catania, Centuripe, Sicily
I was beginning to write something along the party line that RRC 335/9 refers to the battle of lake Regillus and A. Postumius Albus’ throwing a standard among the enemy. And may be does. Florus Writes:
A battle was fought at Lake Regillus, for a long time with shifting fortunes, until Postumius, the dictator, himself adopted the new and remarkable stratagem of hurling a standard among the enemy, in order that it might be recovered. 3 Cossus, the master of the horse, ordered the cavalry to discard their bits — another new device — in order that they might charge with greater vigour. 4 So desperate was the fight at last that a tradition has been handed down that gods were present as spectators. Two young men on white horses sped over the battle-field like stars across the heavens; and no one doubted that they were Castor and Pollux. The Roman commander, therefore, himself prayed to them and, bargaining for victory, promised them a temple, and carried out his promise as though in payment to the gods who were his comrades in arms.
But on the above specimen, that looks a great deal like a falcata in the defeated enemy’s hands. And the so called standards don’t look much like other representations of standards. On some specimens the top ‘standard’ looks more like a helmet:
Standard iconography is seen elsewhere on the republican series
RRC 365 doesn’t look similar at all.
But 437 does bear some resemblance.
The falcata look alike is probably a fluke.