Michael Hewson Crawford (born 7 December 1939) is a British ancient historian who is widely recognized for his contributions to the study of the Roman Republic, especially in the fields of Roman coinage, economy, and constitutional history. He is an Emeritus Professor of Ancient History at University College London (UCL) and a Fellow of the British Academy (elected in 1980). In his book, The Roman Republic, the chapter on the Social Wars, XIII, is titled "The World Turned Upside Down". Rome turned against its allies and against itself in a moment that would redefine the Roman city-state as an Italian republic, and pave the way for later upheavals with the rise of tyrannical, brutal and narcissistic leaders such as Marius, Sulla, and ultimately Julius Caesar.
D. Junius Silanus L.f., 91 BCE, AR Denarius (3.89 g). Rome mint
Obv: Helmeted head of Roma right; E behind.
Rev: Victory driving a biga right; XIIII above. Border of dots.
Ref: Crawford 337/3a;
91 BCE, Lucius Marcius Philippus and Sextus Julius Caesar were consuls. The Italian allies, went to war with Rome. M. Livius Drusus was seen by some as the tribune responsible for triggering the Social War. His legislation to enfranchise the Italians extended Roman citizenship to the Italian allies, but was invalidated by the consul Phillipus , who viewed the reform as dangerous and feared that it would dilute Roman political control.
A letter, written at least four decades later, attributed to Sallust and written to Julius Caesar describes the risk which Philippus may have held: "a monarchy will come into being in place of a free state, when citizenship is extended to a multitude through the bounty of one man" (Sallust Letters to Caesar II.6.1). The letters may well have been written later in the style of Sallust as political commentary during the reign of Augustus.
The assasination of Drusus was a key trigger to the Social War, but the path and the battle over citizenship rights for the socii (allies) was a much longer one.
The Path to the Social War
Ius migrationis ("Right of Migration") was a long standing legal principle in the Roman Republic that allowed Latins (Latini)—inhabitants of Latin allied communities—to gain full Roman citizenship upon relocating to Rome.
194 BCE, unequal treatment under the law, as Livy notes, under the consuls P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus and Tiberius Sempronius Longus, the Roman Senate denied citizenship to Latins from Ferentinum who had relocated to Roman colonies, demonstrating a clear instance where ius migrationis was not automatically granted.
"During the year the people of Ferentinum tried to claim the right of those Latins who had been enrolled in Roman colonies to be deemed Roman citizens. Those who had given in their names had been assigned to the colonies of Puteoli, Salernum and Buxentum, and on the strength of this assumed the status of Roman citizens. The senate decided that they were not Roman citizens."
-Livy, Roman History, 34.42187 BCE, concerns about overcrowding in Rome led to the expulsion of 12,000 Latins who had migrated to the city. Latin immigration based on Roman needs and anxieties.
The senate then gave audience to the deputations who had come from all the cities and colonies of the Latin allies. Their grievance was that a large number of their citizens had migrated to Rome and were placed on the census there. Q. Terentius Culleo, one of the praetors, was charged with the task of finding them out, and whoever was proved to have been registered at home during the censorship of C. Claudius and M. Livius or their successors, he was to order his return to the city in which he had been registered; 12,000 Latins returned in consequence to their homes. Even then the City was overcrowded by the multitude of immigrants.
-Livy, Roman History, 39.3184 BCE, Lex Porciae were extended to give provocatio (the right of appeal) to citizens outside of Rome, to give allies some recourse when faced with unfair punishments. (see: Right of Appeal)
177 BCE, changes to citizenship: the Roman Allies were reaching out to Rome to complain about the loss of citizens to Rome.
The practice of individuals changing their citizenship led to two kinds of fraud. The law allowed those amongst the Latin allies who chose, to become Roman citizens if they left male progeny behind in the old home. This law was abused to the injury of the allies and of the Roman people.For in order to avoid any male descendants being left at home, they gave their children as slaves to some Roman or other, on condition that they should be manumitted, and as freedmen become citizens, whilst on the other hand those who had no male descendants became Roman citizens.
-Livy, Roman History, 41.8The senate granted the Italian allies' request and made it illegal for any person to adopt or manumit someone to change his citizenship, and required all whose ancestors where listed amongst the allies any time after 208 BC should renounce their citizenship.
133 BCE, tension over rights for Latins and Italians shows up again a during the time of Tiberius Gracchus.
"He (Gracchus) also called on the Latin allies to demand the full rights of Roman citizenship, since the Senate could not with decency refuse this privilege to men who were of the same race. To the other allies, who were not allowed to vote in Roman elections, he sought to give the right of suffrage, in order to have their help in the enactment of laws which he had in contemplation. The Senate was very much alarmed at this, and it ordered the consuls to give the following public notice, 'Nobody who does not possess the right of suffrage shall stay in the city or approach within forty stades of it while voting is going on concerning these laws.'"
-Appian, Civil Wars, 1.23The senate distracted from the topic by establishing more colonies.
126 BCE, Cicero references a law that expelled non-citizens from Rome.
"They, too, do wrong who would debar foreigners from enjoying the advantages of their city and would exclude them from its borders, as was done by Pennus in the time of our fathers, and in recent times by Papius."
-Cicero, De Officiis, 3.47109-110 BCE, perhaps not surprising that this coin (celebrating the Lex Porciae and the right of appeal) would show up during in the time period leading up the the Social Wars.
P. Laeca, 110-109 BCE, AR Denarius (18.3mm, 3.92 g, 12h). Rome mint
Obv: P. LAECA, Helmeted head of Roma right; X (mark of value) below chin
Rev: PROVOCO, Figure in military dress, left, with right hand raised; on left, figure in toga, gesturing with right hand; on right, attendant with one rod in right hand and two rods in left hand. Border of dots.
Ref: Crawford 301/1; Sydenham 571; Porcia 4
95 BCE, Lex Licinia Mucia, sponsored by Lucius Licinius Crassus as consul in 95, inflamed tensionsby establishing a process to remove citizenship from anyone who falsely claimed it.
91 BCE, Drusus' was assassinated and his legislation to grant citizenship rights to the allies was invalidated.
"When after these events the promised grant of citizenship for the allies could not be effected, the Italians were enraged and began to promote a revolt. Their gatherings and conspiracies, and the speeches in conference of their leading men are reported in the book. These events made Livius Drusus detested even by the senate as being a promoter of rebellion among the allies; he was cut down in his own home by an unknown assassin."
-Livy, Periochae, 7191 BCE, the massacre at Asculum, Asculum (modern Ascoli Piceno in central Italy) was the site of a violent uprising when Q. Servilius threatened the Asculani, and the Asculani killed him, his legate Fonteius, and other Romans present. This was the final straw that initiated the Social War (Bellum Sociale, 91–87 BCE), a conflict between Rome and its Italian allies (socii), who sought full Roman citizenship or at least some form of libertas from Roman oppression.
End of One War...
90 BCE, in an attempts to limit the opposition, the Romans granted citizenship to all who were not at war with Rome.
89 BCE, the war effectively ended: although some, now obscure, legislative attempts were made to limit the influence of the new citizens, and the Samnites and Lucanians continued to fight until 87 BC, the Social War was, for the most part, over by the end of 89 BC, as new challenges arrived with the massacre of 80,000 Romans in Asia Minor by Mithridates VI of Pontus in 88 BC.
...and Start of Another
Before Rome turned its attention to Mithridates, a battle of egos between Lucius Cornelius Sulla and his mentor turned bitter political rival, Marius damaged the republic. The rivalry resulted in civil war in which Sulla turned his armies against Rome, but that is a story for another day.
Rome and Italy Reconciled: this coin from 70 BC shows Rome and Italy personified, on the reverse, shaking hands. The Roman republic expanded to the full extent of the Italian peninsula after the Social War.
70 BCE Census, the first full census after the Social Wars formalized Italian citizenship, recognizing them as Roman citizens in state records, and granting voting rights to 35 voting tribes, defining military and property tax obligation.
Roman Republic, Q. Fufius Calenus, P. Mucius Scaevola Cordus, AR Denarius (Serratus) (3.95g), Rome, 70 BCE.
Obv: HO (in the left field) - VIRT (in the right field, partially in ligature) / KALENI (in the exergue), laureate head of Honos and helmeted head of Virtus side by side, facing right.
Rev: ITAL (in the left field, partially in ligature) - RO (in the right field) / CORDI (in the exergue), Italia holding a cornucopia and Roma with fasces, resting her right foot on a globe, facing each other and shaking hands; caduceus in the left field.
Ref: Crawford 403/1, Albert 1305.
Notes: Ex HD Rauch Auction 119 Lot 86, slight striking weaknesses. Attractive specimen with a lightly iridescent patina. About Extremely Fine (vzgl.).
Mos maiorum ("customs of the ancestors") was the unwritten code of traditional values and social norms that guided Roman political, military, and social life. Q. Fufius Calenus was a "homo novus" a man with no senatorial class ancestors. To advance in ancient Rome with the strong influence of mos maiorum homines novi had to work harder to prove their worth. New men had to demonstrate superior personal merit, particularly in military success (virtus), honor and reputation (honos). Therefore, it is no surprise that the obverse would be appropriate for Q. Fufius Calenus.
The political career of the moneyer Q. Fufius Calenus, whose family may have originated from Cales in Campania, can be described with some precision: Tribune of the Plebs in 61 BCE, Praetor in 59 BCE, and Consul in 47 BCE. During the trial against Clodius (61 BCE), he supported the accused, whose acquittal was largely due to his efforts. His praetorship revealed him as a supporter of Caesar, whom he followed to Gaul in 51 BCE. Calenus also sided with Caesar during the Civil War, which earned him the Consulship in 47 BCE. After Caesar’s assassination, he aligned himself with Mark Antony.
The identification of the second moneyer remains quite uncertain. He probably belonged to the Muci Scaevolae family, and by adopting the cognomen Cordus, he may have been referencing their legendary ancestor, Gaius Mucius Cordus Scaevola, who became famous for his attempted assassination of the Etruscan king Porsenna. Crawford identifies him as the pontifex P. Mucius Scaevola.
The obverse of Honos and Virtus also seems well connected to the reverse and the interest of P. Mucius Scaevola (or another Mucius Scaevola) in connecting himself to the legend of Gaius Mucius Cordus who infiltrated the Etruscan camp and assassinate the king Porsena. According to the legend, he mistakenly killed Porsena’s scribe instead of the king, and was captured and brought before Porsena.
Mucius Cordus and Etruscan King Porsenna
The surname Cordus was certainly linked to the Gaius Mucius of the legend - according to an author near contemporary to this coin (Dionysius of Helicarnassus moved to Rome in 30 BC)
"And besides him there was also Gaius Mucius, surnamed Cordus, a man of distinguished ancestry, who also undertook to perform a great deed; but of him I shall speak a little later, after first relating in what dire circumstances the state found itself at that time."
-Dionysius of Helicarnassus, Roman Antiquities V.25.4Mucius boldly declared that 300 Romans were sworn to kill the king and earned the cognomen "Scaevola" (left-handed) by thrusting his right hand into a fire without showing pain to prove his bravery to the king. Impressed by his courage, Porsena released him and later negotiated peace with Rome.
"The king [Porsena], furious with anger, and at the same time terrified at the unknown danger, threatened that if he did not promptly explain the nature of the plot which he was darkly hinting at he should be roasted alive. ‘Look,’ Mucius cried, ‘and learn how lightly those regard their bodies who have some great glory in view.’ Then he plunged his right hand into a fire burning on the altar. Whilst he kept it roasting there as if he were devoid of all sensation, the king, astounded at his preternatural conduct, sprang from his seat and ordered the youth to be removed from the altar. ‘Go,’ he said, ‘you have been a worse enemy to yourself than to me. I would invoke blessings on your courage if it were displayed on behalf of my country; as it is, I send you away exempt from all rights of war, unhurt, and safe.’"
-Livy, The History of Rome, II.12.13-14This reference to Porsena also a story of reconciliation between Rome and Italy, although it is not directly referenced on teh coin in any way other than the reference to CORDI.
Michael Harlan proposes an alternative Mn. Cordius Rufus as the CORDI references on this coin. I can find a few reasons to question Harlan's hypothesis:
The main argument against Cordius is the CORDI abbreviation...and the lack of a known father of the same name for Mn Cordius Rufus. There is no evidence in Broughton linking Manius Cordius Rufus (active in 46 BC) to the moneyer "CORDI" of 70 BC. If his father had been the moneyer in 70 BC, there is no record of him holding an official role that would confirm this connection.
The argument for P. Mucius Scaevola (Cordus)
The main argument is really Crawford's : connecting Manius to Cordus would have political value for a novo homo.
There is a convenient tie to the architect of the temple of Honos and Virtus who is also a Gaius Mucius, but this would be a connection to the obverse more than reverse.
"Not only do we miss such a work from Cossutius but also from Gaius Mucius, who,—in the temple of Honour and Virtue erected by Marius,—relying upon his scientific acquirements, finished off the symmetries of the sanctuary, the columns and the entablature, in accordance with the legitimate rules of art. But if it had been of marble so as to be impressive by a costly magnificence, no less than marked by a skillful precision, it would have a name among the buildings of the first and highest class."
-Vitruvius (VII. praef. 17)Babelon (1885-6) and Eckhel (1792-8) both make the association to Manius Cordus and the temple built by Marius. Babelon offers that the moneyer could be an otherwise unknown descendant of the architect.
"Cordus: ...under the Republic, the only known individual was Mucius Cordus, the assassin of Porsenna, king of Etruria¹. The considerations given by Eckhel seem to support the identification of Mucius.
On the obverse of the denarius, we see the symbolic heads of Honour (Honos) and Valor (Virtus). Now, Marius built a temple dedicated to these two deities, and the architect who constructed it was C. Mucius. It is therefore plausible that a descendant of this architect issued this coin, commemorating his ancestor by depicting Honour and Valor."
-Babelon, Monnaies, Vol, I p. 512 (translated from French)RE: Mucius 18 doesn't have much to say about our P. Mucius Scaevola (Cordus) - seems like he might have been a bit old for a triumvir monetalis....
"P. (Mucius) Scaevola was a Pontifex and participated around 690 AUC (= 64 BC) in the banquet for the priestly ordination of the Flamen Martialis L. Lentulus Niger (Macrobius, Saturnalia III 13, 11; see Bardt, Die Priester der vier großen Collegien, vol. IV, p. 1391, 18ff.). He may have been a son of Pontifex Maximus No. 22, whose father and grandfather were also named P. (Bardt, op. cit.), and he may have died in the following years, as he is missing from the list of pontifices enumerated by Cicero in Haruspicum Responsum 12 from the year 697 AUC (= 57 BC)."The reference to P. (Mucius) Scaevola from Macrobius is:
"On the ninth day before the Kalends of September, on which day Lentulus was inaugurated as flamen of Mars, the house was decked out, the dining rooms laid with ivory couches; the pontiffs reclined in two dining rooms—Quintus Catulus, Mamercus Aemilius Lepidus, Decimus Silanus, Gaius Caesar, . . . the priest in charge of sacrifices, Publius Scaevola sixth, Quintus Cornelius, Publius Volumnius, Publius Albinovanus, and Lucius Julius Caesar, the augur who inaugurated him..."
-Macrobius, Saturnalia, XXX.13.11An article from 1978 by Richardson challenges Crawford’s hypothesis and his comment about "humble architects" and suggests that the architect may have been Marius' relative by marriage: Q. Mucius Scaevola, the augur. See:
So, I don't shed any new light on the mystery.....although Crawford is very confident "I have no doubt that his colleague is Mucius Scaevola, arrogating himself to the cognomen Cordus", I would like to have a little more explanation for the connection that he draws. Richardson (1978) argues further :
"a pontifex and a son of Q. Mucius Scaevola, the pontifex maximus who was so foully murdered at the temple of Vesta on orders from the younger Marius (Appian, BCiv. 1.88; Cicero, De Or. 3.10), seems most unlikely to have put Marian symbols on his coinage. We can eliminate P. Mucius Scaevola the pontifex from our considerations"This seems a compelling argument. The quote from Appian describes the murder:
"When Marius [the younger] saw that his condition was hopeless he hastened to put his private enemies out of the way. He wrote to Brutus, the city praetor, to call the Senate together on some pretext or other and to kill Publius Antistius, the other Papirius, Lucius Domitius, and Mucius Scaevola, the pontifex maximus. Of these the two first were slain in their seats as Marius had ordered, assassins having been introduced into the senate-house for this purpose. Domitius ran out, but was killed at the door, and Scaevola was killed a little farther away. Their bodies were thrown into the Tiber, for it was now the custom not to bury the slain."
-Appian, Bellum Civile, 1.88And the note from Augustine, City of God 33
"For when Sulla approached, and they despaired not only of victory, but of life itself, they (Marians) made a promiscuous massacre of friends and foes. And, not satisfied with staining every corner of Rome with blood, they besieged the senate, and led forth the senators to death from the curia as from a prison. Mucius Scaevola the pontiff was slain at the altar of Vesta, which he had clung to because no spot in Rome was more sacred than her temple; and his blood well-nigh extinguished the fire which was kept alive by the constant care of the virgins."Note: Hersch - Walker assign a date of 68 BC to this coin - this would add further question to the timing of P. Mucius Scaevola as moneyer.
References:
Crawford, Michael. The Roman Republic. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Crawford, Michael H. Roman Republican Coinage. 2 vols. Reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019
Wiseman, T.P. New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.-A.D. 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Richardson, L. (1978). Honos et Virtvs and the Sacra Via. American Journal of Archaeology, 82(2), 240–246.
Pauly, August Friedrich von; Wissowa, Georg (eds.): Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Available at Wikisource (accessed 17-Feb-2025).
Harlan, Michael. Roman Republican Moneyers and Their Coins, 81 BCE–64 BCE. Seaby, London, 1995.
Babelon, Ernest. Description historique et chronologique des monnaies de la République romaine, Vulgairement appelées Monnaies Consulaires. 2 vols. Paris: H. Champion, 1885–1886.
Eckhel, Joseph Hilarius. Doctrina Numorum Veterum, Volume V, p. 256. Vienna: Typis Vindobonae, 1792–1798.
Rocca, Samuele. Denarius of the Moneyers P. Mucius Scaevola and Q. Fufius Calenus Celebrating the Bond Between Roma and Italia (70 BCE). Judaism and Rome, August 31, 2018.
Hollstein, Wilhelm. Die stadtrömische Münzprägung der Jahre 78–50 v. Chr. zwischen politischer Aktualität und Familienthematik: Kommentar und Bibliographie. Quellen und Forschungen zur Antiken Welt, Band 14. Munich: Herbert Utz Verlag, 1993.
留言