We have very few passages in ancient writers, in which there is talk of moneyers.
I give them in full.
The evidence of these passages is scanty enough. Nos. 1–4 concern the office of viginti (or vigintisex) viri in general. No. 1 is discussed below (p. 54). From No. 4 we do learn a fact, confirmed by the coins, that Caesar raised the number of moneyers from three to four. No. 6 will claim our attention later (p. 54f.), as it names a moneyer who struck no coins. I exclude No. 7 from the passages relating to moneyers, for I follow the view of Drumann-Groebe (V. 531) that it concerns a triumvirate a.d.a. The exact rendering of the text in question will fit the leader of a colony, but not a moneyer. The moneyer is responsible only to the quaestor, who himself must render a public accounting.
No less scanty is the evidence from the inscriptions, numerous though they are. Strasburger, in his article, "Triumviri" in RE, lists sixty-three in Latin: to these we may add XI. 5171, XIV. 3609 and Dessau 8979.1 The inscription, XIV. 4245, quoted by Groag in the Arch. epigr. Mitt. 19, is doubtful. There is also the elogium XXXIII, CIL I.2 200. Greek inscriptions number six, two of which are quoted by Magie in the article in RE cited above. From all these inscriptions we only learn something about the title and the cursus honorum. The usual title is IIIVIR AAAFF or IIIVIR Monetalis AAAFF. It occurs about fifty times. Twice (XIV. 3592 and 3593) the AAAFF is missing. Exceptionally, there appears IIIVIR AD MONETAM (II, 4609), XXVIR MONETALIS (XIV. 3609) and IIIVIR MONETARVM (Dessau 8979). The following inscriptions are imperfect : In III, 87 and XIV. 1414810 IIIVIR AVR ARG FLANDO, AERE and FERIVNDO has been omitted; in VIII. 23831 and XIV. 4240, one A has dropped out (AAFF); in VI. 1455–6. on the other hand, both inscriptions of the same man, a third F has been mistakenly added (AAAFFF). All these are simply errors on the part of the stone-mason or his model, and it is superfluous to draw any conclusion from them.
In about half the inscriptions the cursus honorum is found in the descending order, with the vigintivirate mentioned near the end. In the remaining half, the cursus honorum is found in the ascending order from the lower offices to the higher. The order is occasionally disturbed, as in XIV. 3609. The elogium gives Q IIIVIR AAAFF AED CVR etc. – that is to say, Pulcher is called first quaestor and then moneyer. Whether this has any constitutional meaning or is only a mistake in writing may be left unsettled.2 On principle I draw no conclusions from isolated instances. Perhaps the inscriptions might yield more information, if we submitted their peculiarities to a close scrutiny and comparison. Groag, for example, by using the inscriptions from Vespasian to Severus, which show a cursus honorum including the vigintivirate, has shown that all patricians of the vigintivirate held only the office of moneyer (AEM 19, 145f).
Inasmuch as almost all these inscriptions come from the Empire (they extend into the middle of the third century) their value for the Republic is limited. But they do show that the office was still in existence down to that date. See also below, p.66.
No laws concerning the moneyers are preserved, if such laws were ever issued. I will quote those laws which refer to the coinage, that is to say, to the activity of the moneyers.
We do not have the text of any, but Pliny gives us the contents of three. He writes (N. H. XXXIII. 13): "Postea Hannibale urgente, Q. Fabio Maximo dictatore asses unciales facti placuitque denarium sedecim assibus permutari, quinarium octonis, sestertium quaternis ... Mox lege Papiria semiunciarii asses facti ... Is qui nunc victoriatus appellatur lege Clodia percussus est." All the dates in Chapter XXXIII are confused and different periods are mixed up with one another. Recent research by Mattingly and others has brought this out clearly. Hence, it is now established that the so-called Lex Flaminia or Fabia – that is, the uncial standard and the retariffing of the denarius at 16 Asses – belong to the age of the Gracchi. The Lex Papiria is placed with some certainty at 89 B.C.; I have widened its scope by means of new observations (p. 32). Thus, the "mox" in Pliny, otherwise unintelligible, becomes understandable. The date of the Lex Clodia, which perhaps did contain further prescriptions, is certainly ca. 104 B.C. (p. 28).
|1||This inscription is quoted in its context by Strasberger; Dessau 1155 is now CIL VI. 32412.|
|2||That a lower office was sometimes actually held after a higher is shown by Mommsen StR. I. 537 and note 1. But these are only rare exceptions, even if the sources are above reproach.|
The coin evidence which is pertinent to our research is found fairly complete in Mommsen's MW, Babelon and the BMC. Indispensable, however, are the three supplements of Bahrfeldt, who has tracked down and faithfully tested almost every piece. Corrections by Bahrfeldt are not always expressly mentioned here, but they are often tacitly adopted. Therefore in checking my material, comparison must be made with Bahrfeldt who has also many important additions.1
Of course the attempt has long since been made to provide a chronological order for the great mass of Republican coinage in addition to the alphabetical arrangement by families which is so convenient, but so completely unscientific. To this end, various approaches have been tried – studies of persons, dates fixed by historical characters or by laws of known date, results of metrology (weights, denominations), finds, style, development of types.2
Identifications. The approach by the study of persons is the oldest and goes back to Fulvio Orsini.3 It has been a fascinating game – identifying persons mentioned in history with the names on the Republican coins – fascinating, but dangerous. There is nothing to tell us whether likeness of name justifies identification, especially if we consider how little variety prevails in the Roman names of the Republic. One has only to study the list of "gentes" in MW 864ff. to see how often a whole series of members of the same families, especially of the great ones, occurs on coins, – to say nothing of the literary sources – the Aurelii, Caecilii, Calpurnii, Cornelii, Furii, Julii, Junii, Licinii, Marcii, Plautii, Pomponii, Porcii, Servilii, Valerii. This method of study, which Kirchner (ZfN, 1898, 74ff.), Sundwall and Head have also applied to the Athenian Tetradrachms of the New Style, is still popular and has been especially exploited by Mommsen, Babelon and the BMC. A comparison of the statements of the last three cited authors shows how vague all these attributions are. In my catalogue, the dates of Babelon and the BMC can be readily compared for each moneyer, inasmuch as I have placed them in each case at the beginning. Often, it is true, such identifications are well supported; often fixed dates do exist which are subsequently questioned. To take one example, Sydenham has quite recently criticized the date of Piso-Caepio, which used to be considered basic, and I think that he is right (see p. 29). The laws in question give equally scanty results, as they can usually only be dated approximately.
Metrological Data. The case is, if anything, worse with the data supplied by metrology. Generally speaking it is admitted that in the case of al marco coinage, that is to say, when a given number of coins has to be produced out of a given weight of metal, without regard to the weight of the individual coin, the single specimen can only be used with the greatest caution. Such a system was in general use in antiquity. There are also divergent theories4 about the determination of the average weight. Furthermore, the number of surviving specimens is often very small and their preservation poor. No wonder, then, that, with the foundations so shaky, the view of experts differ widely. Theories begin at once to diverge over the determination of the standards of the "Aes Grave". Semi-Libral, triental and quadrantal standards are contested. To realize this, one has only to consult the authorities in question – Mommsen, the BMC, Haeberlin, Sydenham and Giesecke.5
The most reasonable view seems to be that the gradual decline in weight happened de facto, as is natural in the development of coinage and that this gradual decline was subsequently regularized by law. The only literary information that we have (in Pliny) concerns the sextantal, uncial and semiuncial standards, which has to be interpreted first of all. Today, the sextantal standard is generally considered to have begun with the denarius at the end of the third century; the uncial standard comes in during the age of the Gracchi; the semiuncial was introduced by the Lex Papiria of 89 B.C.
Hence it is impossible to be too careful in the use of standards for the determination of chronology. Bahrfeldt himself, who lays such stress on weights, writes (SBf, p. 89): "Bei der verh�ltnism��igen Gleichgiltigkeit, welche man in betreff der Fehlergrenze im Gewicht der einzelnen Münzen hat, ist es daher bei diesen Münzen auch oft unm�glich anzugeben, welchem Fu� das einzelne St�ck angeh�rt. Durchschnittsgewichte sind dafür meist ohne Bedeutung und k�nnen nur in wenigen F�llen herangezogen werden."
At this point I will treat a difficulty which Bahrfeldt has discovered in the so-called "heavy" and "light" series of Aes. Again and again, in dealing with individual moneyers, he refers to this unexplained peculiarity. He has recorded the following series (all in Bf III):
|p. 98||Baebius Tampilus||2 Series Semisses: a) heavy at 17.6 (As 34.42,) b) light at 6.72 (As 13.44), sext-semiunc.|
|p. 98||Caecilius Metellus||2 Series Quadrantes: a) at 7.92 (As 31.68), b) 3.4 (As 13.6), sext-semiunc.|
|p. 121||C. Fonteius||2 Series Quadrantes: a) at 6.5 (As 26), b) about 2.5 (As 10), unc-semiunc.|
|p. 139||P. Licin Nerva||2 Series Quadrantes: a) 7.13 (As 28.5), b) about 3.0 (As 12), sext-semiunc.|
|p. 142||P. Maenius Ant||2 Series Quadrantes: a) about 7.0 (As 28), b) 3.5 (As 14), about unc-semiunc.|
|p. 164||C. Scribonius||2 Series (Triens) and Quadrantes a) as 26–23, b) As 14–13, unc-semiunc.|
Here, too, belongs L. Pompon. Molo (p. 158) with two series from As to Sextans – the heavy 36–26, the light 17–14 – that is to say, sextantal to uncial. But inasmuch as there are only five specimens in the light series against 151 in the main series, which is the heavy one, the so-called "light" series may be regarded as mistakes in weight and, as such, neglibible. Perhaps, I should also quote M. Cipius M. F. (p. 110) with a new reverse, and C. Numitorius (Bf I. 26), Triens and Quadrans with C.NVM.
Light and heavy series are generally related to one another, it will be seen, in the proportion of 1 to 2 or a little more. But it must be observed that between these limits, every intermediate stage occurs so that the division into two series becomes doubtful. These differences also occur in other series e.g. , (SBf 121), where the As weighs from 52.51 to 27.35, and Bahrfeldt has not assumed two series here (cp. Catalogue, no. 13). With its stereotyped portraits, there is no certainty to be had from differences of style of the Aes.
In the series just quoted from Bahrfeldt, it will at once strike the reader that the quadrans is almost without exception cited. This denomination, as our Catalogue will show, was certainly the commonest of all, occurring in almost every series of Aes, and often by itself. When the output was so large and protracted, it is no wonder that weights should vary. Therefore it is most reasonable to abandon the theory of two distinct series. Bahrfeldt himself could not discover any reasonable explanation in support of his hypothesis.
A parallel to these series of Aes is supplied by the so-called heavy and light denarii of the first period, were the distinction is just as weakly founded. Samwer-Bahrfeldt has used them to establish the chronological order of the earliest group of denarii with symbol (see below, Group I). Mattingly (JRS, 1929, 31) rightly observes: "When we turn to the coins, we find it hard to trace any clear line between sextantal and uncial bronze and between heavy and light denarii. To judge from them, there was no sudden change of standard either in silver or in bronze, but a gradual decline – which need not have been prescribed by any law. Within groups of coins in both metals, very closely related in style, we find serious variations in weight. To make weight a main criterion and to class all the heavy denarii as early, all the light ones as late, would make havoc of any arrangement. In finds, too, there is no clear distinction between sextantal and uncial bronze and heavy and light denarii." But all these observations go back only to weights, which are certainly very relative. So Mattingly rightly continues: "From the coins we have inferred a change from a denarius of four to one of three and a half scrapes and have associated the reduction more or less closely with the change from sextantal to uncial standard in bronze." And again he remarks, on p. 33: "Both in silver and in bronze there was a steady decline in weight towards a three and half scruple and an uncial standard for denarius and As respectively: but this was dictated by stress of necessity – not by any law." Mommsen (MW, 384) in his day had already made the same observation (Cp. p. 296, on the reduction to one eighty-fourth of a pound, as established by weights): "Nach den jetzt vorliegenden, wenig zahlreichen W�gungen, l��t sich nicht mit v�lliger Sicherheit entscheiden, ob sie (die Reduktion) gesetzlich, oder, wie wahrscheinlicher, allm�hlich stattfand, und welches die Sorten sind, die der �lteren W�hrung folgen."
Therefore I have not taken into consideration the distinction between the heavy and light denarius in Group 2.
Finds. There is no need to waste words on the importance of finds, but we should take to heart what Regling says (SWM 416) about their use. As a general rule, finds nan be dated by their so-called "key" coins – pieces capable of receiving an exact date. But the reverse process, the dating of coins by finds, is far more difficult and demands very great caution. The relative sequence can usually only be established, when a sufficient number of hoards is available, and then the argumentum ex silentio plays its part. Mattingly, for example, in his article on the "Serrati" (NChr. 1924) has pointed out the incorrect use made of finds in the BMC and has redated many of the finds. Sydenham in NChr. 1940 has also made some comments that deserve full attention, and he has set a good example in his table of finds for the age of Piso-Caepio. A new list for all finds of Republican coins should be drawn up with it as a model. It must further be noted that finds have often been falsified (cp. for example, BMC I. 395n. I) or even invented. Bahrfeldt has given many pertinent examples in his Addenda and in his Gold Coinage. For the Greek field Gaebler has recorded a series of interesting example in his valuable articles on Macedonian coin forgeries in the Sitzungs-berichte der preu�. Akademie der Wissenschaften. The argument ex silentio can also be corrected occasionally by later finds, e.g., the find of Cajazzo supplies the hitherto missing gold of P. Clodius and C. Vibius Varus (BMC. I. 555). On the whole question, see Mattingly (RC. 42f.) with his supplementary list of hoards published in the meantime.
Mommsen (MW) made full use of hoards and the BMC even in greater degree – subject, however, to the qualification observed above. Bahrfeldt refers quite often to finds, especially in his R�miche Goldm�nzenpr�gung. In my Catalogue I have not checked the finds, for this would exceed the limits of this essay. However, for a final arrangement, a new examination of this nature will be absolutely necessary.
Types and Style. The development of the types supplies a good guide for the relative chronology. It can be followed in BMC I LXXXIV or in one of the works cited at the beginning. First comes the stereotyped representation of the head of Bellona6 and of the Dioscuri; then nome the deities in chariots, which Mattingly assigns to the age of the Gracchi; then follow historical reminiscences referring to the moneyers; finally references to contemporary events which give only a terminus a quo, for the immediate use of a type after an event can hardly be proved. A much more dangerous attempt is the interpretation made from distinctions of style, for a large subjective element comes into play here. Long practice, a certain intuition and a very sober judgement are essential. De Salis, the real authority behind the BMC, often let himself be led too far by his sense of style. And this brings us to a vital question – that of the local Italian issues.
The older school, Mommsen, in particular, assigns only the first coinage of the Aes down to the Second Punic War to mints outside Rome (MW 371f). We find the names of mints on some of these Aes and on the victoriates. Apart from this, Roman coins, not produced in Rome, are confined to the coinage of the generals. The idea of attributing a large number of denarii, with moneyer's names, to local mints in Italy derives from De Salis, who was influenced by impressions of style. Chronological difficulties, as Mattingly (RC 145) points out, are not found in the purely Roman series. How unconvincing these distinctions of style are, may be seen from a glance at the Plates in the BMC. Generally speaking the coarser work is transferred to the provinces. To realize the fallibility of this argument, simply compare the Roman issues of 102–92 B.C. on Pl. XXIX with the supposedly rougher Italian issues of the same period on Pl. XCIII. This one example will prove sufficient.
Serious constitutional difficulties also come into consideration. The office of moneyer was a city office in common with the rest of the cursus honorum, with the exception of the provincial quaestors of later institution. But these quaestors were financial assistants of the military general. That their special function was necessarily first of all of a distinct nature, is quite understandable because of the Roman tendency to separate financial administration from military administration (cp. below p. 58). On the other hand, it is quite inconceivable that moneyers appointed as the Roman ones and performing their functions should wander about the countryside working now in this mint and now in that. Even the BMC (II. 143) observes: "These local moneyers seem to have been chosen from the same class as those employed in Rome, for the types of their coins show that most of them were members of the most celebrated Roman families. In some cases they may have been moneyers who held office at the mint in the Capitol." The mint of Rome was sufficient for the civil requirements in Italy even during the major part of the Empire, inasmuch as communications were good and easy. However, the generals enjoyed the right to strike coins for the purposes of war. Hence, I do not accept local issues of denarii in Italy at the time of the Republic.
Because of the above considerations I have been obliged to create a new arrangement, which of course has not forced us to go into every detail. In this matter I have been guided by the principles which I set down in my "Aufbau der römischen Münzpr�gung in der Kaiserzeit" (NZ 1933–1936). I believe this new system has proved its worth in other works too, for example, in Elmer's "Münzpr�gung der gallischen Kaiser" (Bonner Jahrb�cher, 1940) and in Delbrueck's Die Münzblidnisse von Maximinus bis Carinus (1944). It has received recognition from Le Gentilhomme (RN 1942, p. 5) and from Mattingly, who assured me by letter, that he is now using my system in his continuation of the catalogue of Coins in the British Museum. The principal idea is quite simple. Every official coinage must be rigorously arranged and controlled, otherwise the financial administration will collapse. History gives us enough examples of this. These principles must have prevailed at Rome all the more, for at Rome especially there was prevalent a most precise and an exact organization which suited the psychology of a peasant nation. Moreover, this order is capable of being discovered in the coins at our disposal, if we arrange systematically and investigate the great masses of common pieces. All exceptional and special issues, on the other hand, must be put to one side and be added subsequently after the main structure is complete. This method has yielded good results for the imperial issues of 192–253 A.D. With Republican coins conditions are of course different. Here we are without dated pieces and the key-coins, which are determined by COS, TRIB POT and other indications of date. Hence I was obliged to search for other aids. The chief idea has been that everything which proceeds from the highest financial authority, i.e. from the quaestor, is strictly speaking a directive for the coinage. To the quaestor belongs above all the fixing of the standard, especially for the Aes, as far as we know and the kinds of denominations which are issued from time to time, as well as the choice of marks of value and marks of control. The rise and decline of denominations rest upon ordinances of this nature. They vary from the complete issue of every subdivision to that of single denominations and vice versa. Often the next group continues the order of denominations and then changes gradually.
A system must be hidden in all these arrangements; they cannot proceed in blind confusion. It may be added that, in view of that obstinate adherence to plans once made, which is proper to the Roman character, any new reform was retained in its exact form, for a time at least. For example, the issues marked with X form a closed series, as well as those marked with or issue marks.
Two principles that I have established have proved most helpful: first, that of the supplementary issues, like the supplementary denarii that I have already traced under the Empire; second, that of the role of the leading moneyer. The special issues, recognizable by a special formula, are always to be separated from the regular. These principles together give us an adequate degree of certainty for a relative chronology and especially for the structure of the monetary system. There are also minor observations which in a secondary fashion contribute to an inderstanding of the Republican coinage – fixed dates for known officers, usually in the special coinages, the introduction of particular types, the legal provisions and other observations.
Important, also, is the sequence of the metals as they make their appearance in the development of Roman coinage. Aes was issued first in contrast to the Greek monetary domain. After a short interval of about twenty years came the Romano-Campanian silver and then the national denarius (cp. p. 50). Gold is always a money of necessity, as with the Greek Republics. The more the Republican principle is threatened, the more frequent do the issues of gold become. Sulla, Pompey, and finally Caesar's rich output of gold give evidence of the trend. The IIIviri RPC in their turn struck gold irregularly in their capacity as generals. The imperial issues of gold begin with Augustus.
All these principles of arrangement are given in the introduction to each group and also often for the individual moneyers. They can be examined there. In order to establish these principles, I was obliged to begin by arranging the fullest, i.e., the latest groups and to work back from them to the earlier and simpler ones. In this paper, however, the natural course of chronological development is demonstrated. Results of a general character which had been reached in the study of later groups have been applied to the earlier ones.
On this basis, I believe I have succeeded in establishing a new and firmer order. I would emphasize, however, that this order is in no way final. The finds must be approached systematically as well as the other criteria, which have been mentioned above, in order to establish an exact system. But in my opinion the main features, the general arrangement and especially the sequence of issues are certain. Within the groups themselves individual moneyers or colleges of triumviri may be moved or exchanged, but the groups themselves are fixed beyond question.
|1||I have omitted many single issues of no special importance, e.g. the As of Metellus (BMC I 79 = Bf III 100); the Triens with S , (BMC I 109 = Bf III 123); the Uncia with LH (BMC II 588 – Bf I, 140); the As of CN PISO FRVGI (BMC II 592 = Bf II 27f); the As with CS (BMC I 107. BMC I 154 (CCA ) = Bf III 116) is a counterfeit. Issues, which in the BMC are separated, are often brought together here.|
|2||A summary is given in Matt. RC. 39.|
|3||Familiae Romanae quae reperiuntur in antiquis numismatibus ab urbe condita ad tempora D. Augusti. Rome 1577.|
|4||Cp. the very worthwhile article of Regling on "Metrology" in SWM and Giesecke IN. 182. note 3.|
|5||The triens, for example, in BMC I, 152, is lighter than the quadrans. The works of these authors can be consulted conveniently in NChr. 1938, 1ff.|
|6||Instead of the Head of Roma. I agree with Mattingly and Robinson. Proceedings of Brit. Ac. XVIII. 29ff.|
The Catalogue contains ten groups, the first of which is presented only in summary form, inasmuch as it makes no contribution to our research. The single colleges of triumviri are numbered not only within the groups but also consecutively. The special issues are cited under the number of the regular series to which they belong. The year given in BMC stands at the beginning of each issue. Where BMC gives a period, e.g. 217–197 B.C., for the sake of simplicity I give the initial date only, e.g. 217. Then, after a diagonal (/), there comes the date given by Babelon. In Group 10 only, the date after the diagonal is the date found in the RIC. Next comes the name of the moneyer, as it appears on the coin; but variations of name are only occasionally cited. The gentile name is added in brackets in cases where it is not already obvious. Next follows a very short description of the piece, with the date on the obverse which is important to us,7 then the reverse type, followed by the details of the reverse. Then come the denominations. Denominations, which have not yet been found but which may be assumed, have been placed in square bracked. I have introduced such presumptive pieces most successfully into my Aufbau. Of course sound reasons must exist for this. Very often the postulated coin has subsequently come to light. Uncertain denominations carry a question mark. After the introduction of issue marks in Group 5, and because of the increase in the number of reverse types, I have substituted the issue marks for details on types. Later, when the marks are lacking, I have used a dash. What precedes the dash belongs to the obverse, what follow,, to the reverse. The regular coinage is arranged in accordance with the colleges of triumviri (sometimes named after their series). The individual issues are recorded only in the special coinages. The output of coin by an individual moneyer is called an issue. Following Sundwall's example the moneyers of a college are marked M1, M2, and M3. Epigraphical variants or minor changes in name are not generally noted. For these variations the BMC Introduction I, pp. cii ff. may be consulted.
I have refrained deliberately from an exact chronology for which the supplementary research of which I have spoken would be necessary; even then, much would remain hypothetical. For my purpose such exactness is not necessary. In the chapter about the introduction of the moneyers (III A) I have placed the beginning of the coinage of denarii in the last third of the Second Punic War. It ends in 7 B.C., as may be seen from Group 10. Fixed dates for particular coinages seldom occur, except in special issues. I give at this point a general survey of the relative chronolgy. The details can be found in the Group listings. Group 1 consists of the anonymous denarii and the denarii with symbols. Then follows Group 2, with the first names – first, with one name abbreviated, then with the first name in full, secondly, with two names, and finally with three (I–II, 210–168 B.C.). The special denominations quinarius, victoriate and As stop in Group 3. The bronze are at first very scarce, but they gradually become more plentiful (168–119 B.C.). Group 4 begins with the foundation of Narbo in 118 B.C. and ends with the Lex Clodia of ca. 104 B.C. The new denarius symbol is characteristic of this group. Group 5, with the issue marks, extends from ca. 104 B.C. to the Lex Papiria of 89 B.C. Group 6 comes next and extends to ca. 81 B.C. Group 7 is dated very roughly at 80–70 B.C. There is a regular issue and a special issue which runs parallel. The beginning of Group 8 is dated approximately at 70 B.C. by means of the special issue of the aediles, Galba and Plaetorius; it extends to ca. 50 B.C. Groups 9 and 10 can be closely dated: Group 9 at 49–41 B.C., Group 10 at 20–7 B.C.
A small group without symbols precedes this group. It is unimportant for our purposes. Samwer-Bahrfeldt makes it contemporary with ours. But our group itself can be determined only approximately.
The symbol have been regarded, probably correctly, as badges of the coining officials. Such symbol had already been customary in Greece. They are found in the sixth and fifth centuries in Abdera, in the fourth and third at Corinth. Best known of all are the badges of the moneyers of Athens from 229 B.C. These appear together with the names of the moneyers. This parallelism is not surprising because of the Athenian influence upon the first silver issue at Rome.
Even in this group it should be possible to establish colleges of triumviri, but the groundwork has not yet been established. Samwer-Bahrfeldt have dealt with these earliest issues and have divided them, on grounds of metrology, into three sections – heavy silver and sextantal Aes, light silver and sextantal Aes, light silver and uncial Aes.. But these divisions, as I have Already shown (p. 11f.) are quite uncertain. What may be gathered from their arguments is that silver was at first issued in mass, just because it was new. The first section contains eight issues of gold and silver and nineteen of denarii and bronze, i.e. twenty-seven issues of nine colleges of triumviri or, perhaps, eight colleges of triumviri, with one issue of gold and silver and two of denarii and bronze, and one pure silver series. Pure issues of bronze appear only in sections 2 and 3. They comprise thirty-nine issues, thirteen colleges of triumviri – four in silver, three in denarii and bronze, five in bronze and one mixed. There are also many special issues, of which I have taken no account. There are also other combinations which might be considered. In the issue with the wheel, we meet for the first time the serratus, but it is an isolated phenomenon, alternating with the ordinary denarii. For our research this group yields no profit.
In complete agreement with the Athenian model (p. 51), the names of the moneyers first appear as monograms, Then are abbreviated and finally are written out in full. This observation gives us then a principle of arrangement for the group. Of course the development does not proceed with mathematical exactness. First one or mors letters were set down as if by way of experiment; then a name, usually the cognomen; afterwards the abbreviated praenomen was added. At the end of the group we find three names. Even in the later groups, there are relapses towards the first system; but, generally speaking, the rise from simple to more complex can be clearly traced. It goes without saying that the denarius because of its small size continues to prefer the shorter forms. In this group separate colleges of triumviri can already be clearly distinguished, e.g., no. 3 with 3 quinarii, no. 6 with 3 victoriates, no. 8 with Diana in biga no. 10 and no. 17 with Victory in biga and the last college of triumviri with three names and the cognomen in each case on the obverse. In the composition of the other colleges the rules, which were mentioned at the beginning, are of value. In the sub-groups I and II, every denarii and bronze series is followed by a supplementary series in bronze, for the use of bronze is still predominant. In the third sub-group with more than one name in the legend, each denarius series alternates at first with a bronze series; towards the end only denarii and bronze series are issued and continue in this fashion into the next group. Therefore, for nos. 1–15 a change of coinage must be assumed for each year (p. 61, no. 29) inasmuch as the division into heavy and light denarii has been neglected for the silver coinage (p. 13). The denarii which Bahrfeldt designated heavy are marked with an asterisk. Now and then victoriates and quinarii also appear while the denominations of bronze seem to go down to the uncial. But the extent of any particular issue is hard to determine in the present state of the coin evidence. The common phenomenon of supplementary denominations, which continues into the third century of the Empire finds here its first obvious expression in a supplementary denarii series (no. 5) and an issue of denarii and quinarii of Tampilus. The Dioscuri are depicted on the reverse type for the most part, but soon the biga appears, first driven by Diana as the national goddess, then by Victory. Thus three sub-groups exist: (1) with monograms, (2) with single names, (3) with two or three names. The distribution of the moneyers into the separate colleges, is in no way definitive, as was noticed in the beginning. I have often collected into one eries issues with the same moneyer's name, which other writers have separated. Besides, so general agreement prevails in regard to the reading of the monograms.
I. With monograms. There is always a denarii and bronze series with one in bronze every two years. A supplementary college of III viri for denarii and a supplementary issue of denarii and quinarii occurs for the first time.
|(1)||a. 196/218 (Plautia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Sx(Unc?)|
|196/217 (Furia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As, Qd|
|196/234 (Autron)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As|
|(2)||b. 217/- Q(uinctia) + Anchor||ROMA||As-Sx|
|196/- (Duil or Durm) + Bull||ROMA||As-Unc|
|217/217 (Furia) + Victoria||ROMA||As-Unc|
2. In the denarii and bronze we find the first attempt to add a praenomen and a single letter to the monogram. One college of triumviri is obvious, because of its denarii and quinarii with the monogram on its side twice out of three times. Bahrfeldt had already noticed this connection (III p. 77). There is a third college with supplementary denarii.
|(3)||a. 240/- (unknown)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D Q [As]-Sx|
|240/234 (Aurel)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D Q As-Sx|
|(196) 240/217* C (O)8 (Terentia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D Q As-Unc|
|(4)||b. 196/217 (Maenia) + Shield||ROMA||As-Sx|
|172/- Ā (Atil. or Tatia)||ROMA||As-Qd|
|(5)||c. 240/224 (Aelia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|Suppl.D 217/217 GR (Sempron)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|196–217 P (Maenia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
3. Here too a single letter has been added to the monogram. One college of triumviri with denarii and victoriates is obvious. There is also a supplementary issue of Tampilus with denarii and quinarii. Diana in the biga appears for the first time.
|(6)||a. 196/234 (Matiena)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D V As-Sx|
|217/217 (Caecil)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D V As-Sx|
|196/217 (Baebia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D V As-Unc|
|Suppl.D 196/217 (Baebia)||X||Diana, Biga||ROMA||DQ|
|(7)||b. 196/227 (Valeria?)||ROMA||As-Unc|
|196/234 (Ael, Aemil, Apul)||ROMA||As-Sx|
|196/218 B (Naevia)||ROMA||As-Sx|
4. One college of triumviri, with Diana in biga, is obvious. Separate single letters occur and once an abbreviated praenomen.
|(8)||a. 196/244 (Aurelia)||X||Diana, Biga||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|172/217 P (Furia)||X||Diana, Biga||ROMA||D As-Sx|
|196/- TOD + Bird||X||Diana, Biga||ROMA||D As-Sx|
|(9)||b. 196/224 (Opeimia)||ROMA||As-Unc|
|172/214 TD (Papir)||ROMA||As-Sx|
II. Single names, usually cognomina, written almost in full. An obvious college of triumviri with Victory in biga.
|(10)||a. 172/200 NAT(A) (Pinaria)||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|172/194 SAR (Atilia)||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D As-Unc ?|
|172/200 P S A (Cornel)||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D As-Sx|
|(11)||b. 172/159 ENA(Licin)||ROMA||As-Sx|
|196/209 OPEI (mia)||ROMA||As-Unc ?|
|172/159 CINA (Cornel)||ROMA||As-Sx|
III. Two or three names, including cognomen. First denarii, alternating with bronze, then denarii and bronze.
1. Almost always with praenomen.
|(12)||a. 240/217* C (Aelia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|196/179 SX Q(uinctil)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|172/204 L ITI (a or Itil)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|(13)||b. 196/89 (C) S 10 (Clovia)||ROMA||As-Sx|
|172/189 A C (Caecil)||ROMA||As-Sx|
|172/189 P BLAS (Cornel)||ROMA||As-Sx|
2. First attempt at three names.
|(14)||a. 196/179* CN C (Calpurn)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|196/179 L COIL||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|217/217 Q L C (Lutaria)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|(15)||b. 196/209 M TITINI||ROMA||As-Unc|
|172/217 L MAMILI 11||ROMA||As-Unc|
|172/159 Q MARI||ROMA||As-Unc|
3. Beginning of the pure series of denarii and bronze. At first with the continuation of the two names. There is an obvious college of triumviri with Victory in biga; finally three names with cognomen on obverse; in c. first mention of the moneyer's father.
|(16)||a. 172/204 C SCR (ibon)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|172/174 C STI||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Sx|
|172/209 (Iuvent)11a||X||Diana, Biga||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|(17)||b. 172/200 S AFRA||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|172/200 L SA||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D As-Sx|
|150/194 C | |||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|(18)||c. 196/179 CN DO(M on As)12||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Sx|
|172/204 C IVNI (C F on denarius)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|172/214 C R LVC||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Sx|
|(19)||d. 172/174 M ATILI SAR||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|172/174 Q RC LIBO (not on As)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|172/174 L SE PITIO||X||Diosc||ROMA||D As-Unc|
|7a||This group ends perhaps with the cessation of the victoriate, 168 B. C., cf. NChr, 1932, 73.|
|8||C. occurring on denarii, O on the bronze.|
|9||A typical example of the uncertainty of weights. According to Bahrfeldt, III, 158, the Asses give an average of 25.85, while the Sextantes give 36.12. The Case is similar with the allied series with the hammer.|
The absence of victoriates and quinarii in silver and the absence of the As in bronze are the outstanding characteristics of this group. The quadrans is the only denomination of Aes to appear regularly (cp. p. 12). Gradually the other values art added, first Semis, then Triens, finally Sextans and Urcia. This gives us a principle of arrangement. That the ascending order is correct is proved by the fact that the last issue, with the Semis-Uncia series complete, is linked to the initial series of the fourth group, which then grows gradually thinner in diminishing order. Evidently at the beginning of our group there were still enough bronze available, so that all needs could at first be met by the most important denomination, the quadrans. Then the ever increasing lack of bronze produced a larger issue.
The extent of the Aes coinage is indeed very uncertain, as may be seen from Bahrfeldt's exact observations and Corrigenda. The present state of our material, which generally speaking is very scanty, justifies our arrangement. But if finds should contribute new material, changes must be made even in the case given. In regard to the separate colleges of triumviri, we do find with the exception of the last series that the leading moneyer also strikes bronze, while his two colleagues have denarii only. To this group belong all the remaining denarii with X, for this sign is replaced by in the next group. For this reason it was necessary to transfer to this group as late an issue as that of Aquillius.
The revaluation of the denarii at sixteen Asses also takes place at this period. It has been placed by recent students in the age of the Gracchi, by Sydenham in the days of the Elder, by Mattingly, with more probability in the time of the Younger (cp. also no. 29 n. 20, below, on the "Appeal" scene). The new designation of value, XVI, appears on two series; then, if my arrangement is accepted, gives place again for a short time to the old and is finally replaced by , as Kubtischek has correctly observed (cp. Group 4).
Order still prevails in the determination of the denominations and marks of value. In this we still recognize the strictly official control of the quaestor. However, in the choice of types much looseness begins to appear. This has already been stated in BMC I. 126, infra: "..... At this time so many changes were taking place, not only in the types, but also in the moneyers' names and their positions, and even in the mark of value." In this respect the moneyers were given a free hand, which appears from their choice of mint symbols, which are not always family badges, but may have direct reference to the moneyers themselves. At first this change concerns only the reverse, on which the Dioscuri are more and more pushed aside by deities in chariots and finally disappear. Twice reverses of the Romano-Campanian Age are repeated, namely, the Oath-Scene and the she-wolf and twins. Towards the end of this group we meet with an appeal scene and a monument. For the first time one moneyer strikes two types; later, there are as many as ten or more. The obverse also under goes a change, but only as a first attempt, for the head of Bellona still ranked as a sacred symbol First the head was turned to the left; then, only once, replaced by a head of Sol. Other innovations were the placing of the name of ROMA on the obverse and of the mark of value on the reverse. The revolution extended even to the unchanging bronze. Under the triumvirate of Domitius, Silanus and Curtius, No. 30, with the attributes of the deities, whose heads appear on the obverse, were used as the type of the reverse. In this triumvirate the leading moneyer distinguished himself from M2 and M3 by striking alone. Here also for the first time a substitute has been appointed in the college of triumviri, no. 27, which issued a second series. His predecessor had disappeared either for natural or political reasons. Later such an occurrence happens frequently. Finally the first special coinage of a quaestor with EX SC13 belongs to this group. The stirring times are reflected in the coinage, and the gradual dissolution of Republican forms can be traced in it.
Some colleges of triumviri clearly emerge, for example, no. 23, with ROMA and the cognomen of the obverse and the first quadrigae – a simultaneous support for the order denarii and bronze plus denarii. Then there are the two series with XVI, nos. 27A and 28 and the preceding one, no. 27, with two of the moneyers of no. 27A. Finally in no. 30, all three moneyers appear for the first time on one coin.
I. With Quadrans alone.
|(20)||1.||150/149 Q MINV RVF||X||Diosc||ROMA||D Qd|
|150/214 C PLVTI (Plaut)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D Qd|
|172/164 LC (Cupiennia)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D Qd|
|(21)||2.||150/149 C CATO (Porcia)||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D Qd|
|150/209 P PAETVS (Aelia?)||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|150/164 CN LVCR TRIO||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|(22)||3.||93/129 TI (B) 14 (Veturia)||X||Oath-Scene||ROMA||D Qd|
|172/174 M IVNI||X||Diosc||ROMA||D|
|172/214 FLAVS (Decimia)||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D|
4. First, with ROMA on obverse and X occasionally on reverse. First Quadrigae. Cognomen always on obverse. Obviously a triumvirate.
|(23)||102/144 Q FABILABEO||X||ROMA||Jupp, Quadr||D Qd|
|102/135 CN COR L L F SISENA||X||ROMA||Jupp, Quadr||D|
|102/135 A NIQFSER 15||ROMA||Sol, Quadr X||D|
II. With Semis and Quadrans.
|(24)||1. 150/129 SEX POM FOSTLVS||X16||She-wolf & twins||ROMA||D Sm Qd|
|150/149 MF CF (Fannia)||X||ROMA||Vict, Quadr||D15a|
|102/135 M TVLLI||ROMA||Vict, Quadr X||D|
|(25)||2. 150/139 (M)CARB(O) (Papiria)||X||Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Qd|
|150/154 C RENI||X||Juno, Biga||ROMA||D15a|
|150/154 M ELI COTA||X||Herc, Biga||ROMA||D15a|
III. With Semis, Triens and Quadrans. Two colleges of triumviri with XVI, the first of which represent a supplementary issue to that preceding it; here a substitute occurs for the first time.
1. Head left, for the first time, for Baebius.
|(26)||150/149 CN GEL||X||Mars, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd|
|150/139 R (Aurelia)||X||Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D|
|150/144 M BAEBI Q F TAMPIL||X||Apollo, Quadr||ROMA||D|
2. Double issue with X and XVI.
|(27)||a. 150/209 C CF(LAC) (Valeria)||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D Sm [Tr] Qd|
|150/214 A SPVRI(lius)||X||1) Vict, Biga||ROMA||D|
|X||2) Dinna, Biga||ROMA||D|
|99/94 L FLAMINI CILO||X||ROMA||Vict, Biga||D|
|(27A)||b. With a third substituted. Supplementary denarii.|
|Val. Flaccus as above||XVI||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D|
|Spurilius as above||XVI||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D|
|150/136 LĀILI NOM (Atilia)||XVI||Vict, Biga||NOM 17||D|
|(28)||3. 150/136 C TITINI||XVI||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D [Sm Tr] Qd18|
|150/136 M RVS (Aufidia)||XVI||Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D|
4. Head of Sol, for the first time, for Aquiliuis.
|(29)||99/94 M CIPI MF||X||Vict, Biga||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd19|
|90/94 AQVIL||X||Luna Biga||ROMA||D|
|90/110 PLCA (Porcia)||X||ROMA||Appeal Scene20||D|
IV. Semis – Uncia. At first both denarii and bronze series and denarii series, then denarii and bronze series only.
1. For the first time, all three moneyers appear on one coin and, on the bronze, there are new and varying reverses, without ROMA. M1 strikes alone, M2and M3 strike denarii together. All three together strike bronze.
|(30)||224/114 CN DOMI:||Sm, Tr, Qd, Sx|
|Q CVRT:M SILA (Junia)||X||Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D|
2. Three denarii and Bronze series which form the point of contact with the following group.
|(32)||150/139 L EBANI||X||Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd Sx [Unc]|
|150/144 CC (F) (TRIGE) 21||X||Juno, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd [Sx Unc]|
|150/129 C AVG (Minucia)||X||ROMA||Monument||D Sm Tr Qd [Sx] Unc|
First special coinage with EX S C
|94/104 L TORQVA (Manlia)||X||Horseman||ROMA Q EX SC||D|
|11a||The denarii with Diana / Biga (BMC I, 796) belong to this series.|
|15a||Sm and Qd uncertain.|
|10||Sometimes with C.|
|11||There is a second series without the names of moneyers, but with Odysseus as insignia in Bf. III 143. cp. below, Group 4, C Metellus.|
|12||Bahrfeldt, ZfN, no. 19, 53ff. gives only As, Qd and Sx with this denarius; The rest go in Group 4.|
|13||I take Q always to mean Quaestor. For details, see below, on Group 5.|
|14||Only once on Quadrans.|
|15||Of the Sergian tribe, it is supposed. On this point see Kubitschek, 69f., who, on the general question, turns down this explanation for GAL (Galeria) too, but accepts it for TRO ("Tromentina").|
|16||Vienna has a specimen with X (See Bf. I. 45). B. M. C. I. 132 regards it as an imitation.|
|17||Cp. Bf. III. 94.|
|18||Possible, according to Bf. III. 171. He will not accept the Aes of Aufidius (p. 95).|
|19||A second series of Quadrantes in Bf. III. 110.|
|20||Of the three "leges Porciae" Drumann-Groebe, V. 3. 99f. gives a general account. There is a lack of reliable detail. Our scene is military in character and, therefore, refers to D.-G.'s third law. D. G. date it between 129 and 110 B. C. Mommsen, St. R. III. 353, to 123–108 B. C., Bab. II. 369–370. and CAH. IX. 62. n. I to the age of the Gracchi. If my date of 118 B. C. for the beginning of Group 4 is accepted, the issue is right for the time of the Younger Gracchus, c. 133–121 B. C., as there are only two colleges after it in Group 3.|
The decisive criteria of arrangement are the following. The new sign, , is regularly used except in the first college of triumviri. At first Because of the contact with Group 3, the denominations are still plentiful, but the As continues to be missing. Gradually the denominations become scarcer. In the beginning we find, as at the end of Group 3, there are always three denarii and bronze series with two pure series of supplementary denarii, and then appear one denarius and Bronze plus two denarii. The first sub-group goes from Semis downwards, the second from Triens, the third from Quadrans, but the present state of our material always has to be taken into consideration. In this group, too, the Quadrans is also regular. The occasional special coinage of the Dodrans and Bes is surprising. On the reverse we meet the old type of the Dioscuri for the last time; otherwise, deities in chariots are common, whilst new reverses become increasingly plentiful. The leading moneyer often has Jupiter in a quadriga. Towards the end of this group the legend ROMA is occasionally missing from the denarius; in the next group it disappear entirely. On the other hand, the first issue marks are foreshadowrd in the issue of C. Sereveilius, no. 37. There are three obvious colleges of triumviri, nos. 37, 39 and 40. A supplementary issue to no. 37 is indicated by the dodrans and bes, which can hardly be detached from No. 37 although they are peculiar. Here again, one moneyer must have dropped out:.
The initial coinage of L LIC and CN DOM is important. I follow the views of Kubitschek (Studien, 57ff.), who first discussed the question and of Mattingly (NChr. 1924, p. 45), who associated the issue of this denarius with the foundation of Narbo.21a Mattingly sees in the two names the IIVIRI COL DED. The only record we have is that they were censors together in 92 B.C. But censors have nothing to do with coinage. But there is no objection to supposing with Kubitschek that they had already held an office together,22 especially an extraordinary office like that of the IIVIRI COL DED. All that we know is that Licinius was entrusted with the dedication of the colony. But generally speaking there were two or three Commissioners, and Cn. Domitius was about the same age as Licinius. Licinius was born in 140 B.C., was TRIB PLEB in 107, and Domitius was TRIB PLEB in 104. Hence there is no objection to their having been colleagues in this post. The old date 92 B.C., has been rejected decisively by Mattingly (RC 43). The whole earlier development also makes this date improbable. Mattingly believes that the moneyers who use were quaestors, yet the sign Q is missing. In any case the denarii were supplementary and form a kind of special coinage, as there are only two men involved. The transition is clear. First comes a college of triumviri with the old mark X followed by supplementary denarii with . This mark now became regular, as Kubitschek, (loc. cit.) has admirably noted. It arose from the need of avoiding in matters of bookkeeping the ambiguous X and in distinguishing between XVI as a number and as six denarii. This new mark was brought about by the evaluation of the denarius at sixteen asses, which, according to Mattingly occurs in the time of the Gracchi, more probably in the time of the younger Gracchus. Our order also confirms the opinion of Kubtsschek that XVI and have a close connection.22a
If we follow the above reasoning the initial date of Group 4 may be fixed at 118 B.C. Its final date will be obtained from the beginning of the next group, which is marked by the new coinage of quinarii around 104 B.C.
Here we meet the first "serrati" (cp. Mattingly, NChr. 1924) with names of moneyers (for the occasional appearance of few anonymous "serrati," with wheel as a badge, see BMC 11. 215). If the view that they were struck for external trade is correct, the assumption that our denarii were struck for Narbo gains fresh support.
Transiton, special coinage for the foundation of the colony of Narbo, therefore only denarii, and those "serrati" The triumviri of the mint still use X, the supplementary denarii have . All are marked L.LIC:CN DOM.
a. Regular college of triumviri.
|(32)||92/92 L POMPONI C||X||Mars, Biga23||—||Dserr|
|92/92 C MALLE C F (public)||X||Mars, Biga||—||Dserr|
|92/92 L COSCO M F||X||Mars, Biga||—||Dserr|
|92/92 L PORCI LICI||Mars, Biga||—||Dserr|
|94/92 M A ELI SCARI||ROMA||Dserr|
I. From Semis downwards. This links up with the last college of triumviri in Group 3 with Semis to Uncia.
A. Sm, Tr, Qd, Sx
|(33)||1. 102/129 M G (unteia) Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd Sx|
|124/114 C NVMITORI 24 ROMA||Vict, Quadr||D Sm Tr Qd Sx|
|124/114 TI (MINUCI CF) Monument AVGVRINI||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd Sx|
2. The leading moneyer has a complete issue, the other two supplement one another. With them goes a supplementary coinage of the leading moneyer, with badge, but not name.25
|(34)||93/134 C METE(LLVS) ROMA (Caecil)||Jupp, Biga||D Sm [Tr] Qd [Sx]|
|124/129 M PORC LAECA Libertas, Quadr||ROMA||D|
|124/84 M FABRINI||ROMA||Sm Tr Qd Sx|
|124/99 Without name. Elephant's Head ROMA||Pax, Biga||Sm Tr Qd Sx|
B. Sm, Tr, Qd
1. Last appearance of the old type of the Dioscuri.
|(35)||124/106 L MINVCI||Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd|
|100/129 M ACILIVS MF||Herc, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd|
|124/134 T Q (uinctius)||Diosc||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd|
2. P. Nerva has bust of Bellona to left.
|(36)||124/129 Q E (Caecil) Jupp, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd26|
|124/114 CN DOMI DO) (or Vict, Biga||ROMA||D Sm Tr Qd|
|99/110 P NERVA ROMA||Voting Scene||D Sm Tr Qd|
3. Obvious college of triumviri, each with two obverse types: (1) Head of Bellona, (2) head of Apollo. The head of Bellona always has a cross as a mark on the helmet (Bf I, 64). Serveilius has A, B, – presumabley marks of the first issue. Remarkable denominations, Dodrans and Bes. Also a supplemeniary issue.
|(37)||94/122 M METELLVS Q F (Caecil)||ROMA||Maced Shield||D Dodr27 Sm Tr Qd|
|91/123 Q X (Fabia)||ROMA||Cornucopiae||D Sm Tr Qd|
|94/123 C SER IL||ROMA||Combat on Horseback||D Sm Tr Qd|
|Suppl. issue 124/109 C CASSI||Libertas, Quadr ROMA||D Dodr Bes28|
|(38)||C. Now only Sm and Qd. 124/134 ACILI (B BVS)||ROMA||Jupp, and Victory in Quadr||D Sm Qd|
|99/134 L OPEIMI||Vict, Quadr||ROMA||D Sm Qd|
|124/106 P CALP||Venus, Biga||ROMA||D Sm Qd29|
To this group as a whole are attributed two colleges of triumviri with supplementary denarii
|(39)||1. 124/110 C F:LR : Q M Vict, Quadr or Q CF: L R (Fabia, Roscia, Marcia)||ROMA||D|
|(40)||2. 124/108 M CALID : Q : ROMA C L or C O : M C : Q M. (Fulvia, Calid, Caec.)||Vict, Biga||D|
II. From Triens downwards; the denominations steadily decrease in number.
A. Old order, 3 DAE, Tr, Qd, Sx, Unc.
|(41)||124/129 C I GEM Mars, Quadr||ROMA||D Tr Qd Sx Unc|
|124/110 P Vict, Quadr (Maenia)||ROMA||D Tr Qd Sx Unc|
|93/124 CSERVEILIMF ROMA||Diosc||D Tr-Qd SxUnc|
B. With denarius and bronze series plus 2 denarii series, Tr, Qd.
|(42)||1. 124/119 M CI Vict, Biga||ROMA||D Tr Qd|
|99/134 M OPEIMI Apollo, Biga||ROMA||D|
|99/134 SEX I I CAISAR Venus, Biga||ROMA||D|
|(43)||2. 124/124 L S GRAG Jupp, Quadr (Antest)||ROMA||D Tr Qd|
|99/134 L POST B Mars, Quadr||ROMA||D|
|99/119 Q PILIPVS Horseman (Marcia)||ROMA||D|
|(44)||1. 99/112 L PHILIPPVS (Marcia)||Equestrian statue||D Qd Unc|
|99/112 T DEIDI||Duel||D|
|99/112 AEMILIOLEP RO||Equestrian statue||D|
2. The name ROMA is often omitted.
|(45)||124/129 M () GEM||Sol, Quadr.||D Qd Unc|
|90/94 L MEMMI||Diosc standing||D|
|90/104 L VALERI FLACCI||Mars advancing||D|
Special coinage. First appearance of the head of Mars occurs on coins of Lutatius and Rustius.
|Ship, Q||D Unc30|
|99/104 M SERGI SILVS ROMA EX SC||Horseman, Q||D31|
|88/106 CETEGVS EX SC (cornel)||Atys on Goat,ROMA||D32|
|76/71 L RVSTI SC||Ram||D|
|21a||For other issues of denarii for the foundation of colonies see RC. 32.|
|22a||X appears sporadically in Group 5 on some of the denarii of Albinus, just as reappears on a few denarii of piso (Group 6), after marks of denomination had ceased to be used. Probably, they are not to be taken as marks of the denarius, but as symbols, such as were fashionabte at the time(cp. no. 49 and Bf. III. 100). We meet all these marks of value in the coinage of the rebels in Marsic War, often with old reverse (she—wolf and twins, Oath-scene) — in a deliberately archaising style (Kubitschek, Studien, 63) Cp. also the denarii of Lentulus Cur with , ascribed to Spain (BMC II. 359). On the general use of for denarius in the Empire, see Kubitschek, 55 ff.|
|21||D also without F, AE with TRIGE.|
|22||Cp. Plautus and Plancius, 54 B. C. (p. 37), who were together TRIB PLEB in 56 B. C. and AED CVR in 54.|
|23||Not Bituitus; Kubitschek, NZ 1913, 223f.|
|24||According to Bf. I. 26 there is a second series with Trites and Quadrans but with C NVM.|
|25||Also in Group 5, Mallelolus sometimes has name and badge, sometimes badge only. Cp. Mamilius in Group 2.|
|26||Bahrfeldt, III. 100, agrees in taking the As out of this group. The Uncia is doubtful (BF. I. 62).|
|27||Unique according to BF. III. 100.|
|28||According to BF. 1.81. the Bes is unique. For a Qd that may belong here, see Bf. 1.81.|
|29||The reverse, ship with oarsmen, is new for AE.|
The beginning and end of this group can be surely fixed. The As is again struck. Here we find the last bronze of the Uncial standard (supposing the weights to be correct), since the Lex Papiria of 89 B.C. introduced the semi-uncial standard. Our group then extends to the beginning of 89 B.C. Its beginning is determined by the reintroduction of the issues of Quinarii. As Pliny (33.3.13) reports, the Victoriate was again introduced by the Lex Clodia, but was now equal to the Quinarii (Maecianus, distrib. 45 Hultsch, Metr . script. rell., p. 66). Perhaps the Reissue of the As was also prescribed by the law in A manner similar to the Lex Papiria which also contained additional regulations. The date of the Lex Clodia is uncertain. Probably the Clodius is the same person as the Cl. Pulcher, to whom the "elogium" of 92 B.C. refers (p. 8), who was AED CVR in 99 B.C. and praetor in 95. A denarius of 106–104 B.C. is ascribed to him (No. 46b). If this is right) the date of the Lex Clodia is fixed at 104–102 B.C. (Kubitschek, 38, cp RE, Suppl. VII. 383). This date is confirmed by the coinage, for the first Quinarii of Egnatuleius have no symbols, and symbols were not introduced until after 100 B.C. The Q on this half-piece is read by many as Quinarius, but Kubitschek has given good reasons for believing this interpretation improbable (Stud. 39). The coinage of Fundanius is most instructive. He has the Q on denarii as well as on Quinarii, and so it must always be read as "Quaestor," as on earlier issues and on inscriptions. If two meanings had been possible, they would have caused confusion. The half-piece was generally marked as a Victoriate, equals Quinarius, by its reverse type of Victory, as well as by its size and weight. I invariably interpret Q as Quaestor (so too IN 271 and no. 5) and class all Quinarii of our group as special coinages. It is, perhaps, not improbable that this new denomination, as a special issue, was at first struck by the quaestors. The regular Quinarii of the next group no longer bear the mark Q.
The mark of value, appears only sporadically and occurs once in the next group, which is closely connected with ours; X too appears sporadically on a few denarii of Albinus. It must be supposed that these signs were no longer considered marks of value. Especially on the family coins of Piso Frugi (Nos. 55. 69) is only a survival. For C. Piso, and XVI appear side by side, and evidently had the same meaning. The number of Mettius (No. 82) are also archaizing. In general, there is a definite falling away from the earlier strict ordering that was observed in the make-up of the denarius. For, apart from anything else, the legend ROMA on the denarii and the head of Bellona grow steadily rarer and are used quite arbitrarily. It is obvious that the moneyers were allowed more license over the external forms of the denarius (so too in Group 4, above). Hence the reverse types also become more and more varied; the obverses also display all manner of heads, gods and numina; the head to the left becomes increasingly common.
In exchange, a new system of control was introduced, which kept on developing and was chiefly used for heavy coinages. Inasmuch as these innovations certainly emanated from the highest financial official, that is to say, from the quaestor, they supply us with a sound guide in regard to the arrangement. The first marks of issue to be used are the symbols, which had already been placed on the coins in the early period as badges of the moneyers. Next come letters which had already appeared on the Romano-Campanian didrachms following an Egyptian model. Whether A and B on the denarius of C. Serveilius (No. 37) may be taken as precursors of these letters, may be left undecided. Finally number are extensively used. All the marks are often used in combination.
All these details give us a principle of arrangement. In the first place, I put the supplementary issues, the last of which together with marks of issue must be arranged inside the regular coinage. There are two divisions. The first contain four colleges of triumviri with supplementary denarii after an old model without marks of issue. Only in the last college of triumviri do we find a modest beginning of symbols. The transition from to star is of great interest for the development. The second division includes the issues of the quaestors. The earlier ones are still without marks of issue. The later are introduced by the special suppremeniary issue of Piso-Caepio, which already (according to Bf III, 101) shows eight varied symbols. Traditionally, 100 B.C. used to be taken as a fixed date (BMC I. 170) for this coinage, but Sydenham (in NChr. 1941, 164 ff.) has now shown good reasons for questioning this date. He now places these denarii in 96/95 B.C.32a I must admit that I do not know on what grounds his assertion is based that the coinage of Silanus and Piso is safely to be dated to 90 B.C. The bronze of both moneyers, especially of Piso, already has the semi-uncial standard, and therefore must have been issued after the Lex Papiria and not earlier than 89 B.C. But for our general picture this is of no great importance. According to our suggested dating the quinarii of Egnatuleius must have been struck about 100 B.C. The other issues consist mainly of quinarii.
The arrangement of Group 4, i. e., denarii and bronze series plus two denarii series, except that bronze now becomes scantier and declines, are continued in the regular coinage, which may begin ca. 95 B.C., if we follow the dating of Piso-Caepio, as it already shows distinct marks of issue.
From this point I have stopped describing the reverse types inasmuch as they are now so very changeable. I do, however, quote the marks of issue, SB equals "symbol," L equals "letter," (gr. equals "Greek"), N equals "number". If the marks of issue appear on both obverse and reverse, I write obv. and rev. Corr. Sb. means the obverse and reverse correspond to one another. Occasionally we meet "serrati" again.
I. Supplementary issues.
A. Suppl. D, still without IM. Four colleges of triumviri. In the two first only the leading moneyer has ROMA.
|(46)||1. 101/119 T CLOVLI 33||ROMA Vict, Biga||D|
|91/106 C PVLCHER (Claudia)34||Vict, Biga||D|
|89/106 L IVLI||Vict, Biga||D|
|(47)||2. 93/104 M FOVRI L FH ILI||Roma with Trophy ROMA||D|
|89/94 L POMPON MOLO||Numa Sacrificing||D|
|90/90 Q RM (Minuc)||Duel||D|
|(48)||3. 77/79 L RVTILIFLAC||Vict, Biga||D|
|78/79 L CASSI Q F||Libera||D|
|77/64 C POSTVMI A||Dog||D|
4. M1 and M2 have two types each. All three have head of Apollo once. First symbols: has become a star (Bf III, 100); so, too, X is used as a symbol. Perhaps the head of Apollo with a star is derived from the model of M. Metellus (Series 37). The same archaizing factor is found for Piso-Frugi (series 55).
|(49)||89/89 C M (L) 35 (Poblicia)||1. Head of Apollo||Roma with Vict, ROMA D|
|2. Sb (Star), Mars||Warrior, ROMA D|
|89/89 A BINVS S F (Post)||1. Sb (Star and X), Apollo-Diosc, ROMA||D|
|2. ROMA, Bust of Diana. 3 Horsemen|
Together with L Metellus:
|A ALB S F:L METELL: C M L||2 Sb (Star, or Crescent,) Head of Apollo||Roma with Vict, ROMA||D|
B. Coinage of the quaestors.
a. Earlier issues without IM.
|91/99 AP CL:T M :Q 36 or T M : AP CL: Q (Mallia Claudia)||Vict, Triga D|
|102/111 C EG EI C F Q||Vict, Trophy, D ROMA, Q|
b. Later issues with IM.
|Only 8 SB.|
|100/100 PISO (Calp):||Q Av: Sb||AD FRV EMV||D|
|CAEPIO (Servil)37||EX SC|
|With complete alphabet.|
|89/101 C FVNDA (N)||Obv: L||Q||D Qu|
|101/101 T CLO I||Obv: L||Q||Qu|
|90/101 P SABIN (Vettia)||Obv + Rev: L||Q||Qu|
II. Regular coinage, as at the end of Group 4, with denarius and bronze plus two denarii. As IM, symbols still appear at first, but later there are only the L, still no N. Occasionally and ROMA appear. Several moneyers strike "serrati".
|(50)||1. 91/99 CN BLASIO CN F(Cornel)||Obv + Rev:Sb and Gr. L||ROMA||D As Sm [Tr] Qd|
|93/110 N FABI PICTOR||Obv + Rev: Sometimes L||ROMA||D|
|89/90 C ALLI BALA||Obv: L, Rev: Sb||D|
|(51)||2. 91/112 C FO||Obv: L||ROMA||D As SmTr Qd38|
|90/94 L SATVRN (Appul) Rev: L||ROMA sometimes||D39|
|90/94 L THORIVSBALBVS Rev: L||D|
|(52)||3. 91/82 L MMI GAL ROMA Obv, Rev: L||Dserr As Sm Qd|
|91/90 L COT (Aurel)||Obv, Rev also Obv +Rev: L||Dserr|
|91/90 L SCIP ASIAG||Obv, Rev: L||Dserr|
4. On the first two denarii (D) PP is taken to mean "Penates Publici".
|(53)||91/94 C SV ICI (CF)||Rev: L||Dserr As Sm Qd|
|91/104 FO NE I||Rev: L||D|
|90/94 C COIL CALD||Rev: L||D|
|(54)||91/99 M RENNI||Obv, Rev: L||D[As]SmQd Unc|
|90/90 LIVLIL F CAESAR||Obv + Rev: L||D|
|89/90 L CASSI CICI||Obv: A–K, Rev : X–M||D|
|32a||For quite a different view, see CAH. IX. 165.|
|30||Without CERCO and Q.|
|31||For a supposed "serratus", cp. Bf. I. 73.|
|33||Babelon 1. 359 separates this moneyer from the one who issues the Qu. But he certainly struck later as quaestor.|
|34||For the date, see NChr. 1924. 36. n. 3. and 1941. 169.|
|35||In BMC II. 308. there is also AE with family badge (hammer); but contrast Bf. 159. It is suggested that the issue was struck for the foundation of Eporedia, RC. 33.|
|36||According to BM. I. LXXI, a special coinage for the corn-law of M Livius Drusus. But, on the analogy of earlier colleges of triumviri (series 39, 40), we should prefer to find three names (cp. Eckhel and others in BMC I. 199 n. I.).|
|37||For the new date, 96–95 B. C., cp. Introduction to Group 5.|
|38||According to Bf. III. 122 the Uncia does not belong here.|
|39||According to Bf. III. 122 the AE is to be cancelled.|
The initial date is supplied by the Lex Papiria of 89 B.C. For this law and its contents, see the note on the "argentum publicum" (p. 58). It is expressly mentioned on the anonymous bronze and on the rare sestertius. From this law there stem the following reforms: 1. Introduction of the semi-uncial standard. 2. Issue of sestertii. 3. Coinage out of the "argentum publicum". 4. Special colleges of triumviri, which serve as supplements and, in part, also work anonymously. Actually we have occasionally met such colleges before. But now they are prescribed by law and continue into the next group. The disturbances of the period are shown: I. By the numerous supplementary issues, with their various special formulae, and also with such descriptions of office as AED CVR and PLEB, and PRAETOR, the last two of which appear only here. 2. By a rich coinage of denarii. For example the list of finds in BMC III. 14 gives from the Find of Fiesole, 125 for Silanus, 211 for Piso Frugi, 439 for Q. Titius, 50 for Vibius Pansa; from the Find of M. Codruzzo, 67 for Silanus, 323 for Vibius Pansa, 253 for T. Sabinus, 308 for Cn. Lentulus, 167 for the anonymous coins that follow Bursio, 194 for the anonymous coins that follow "Garg." "Oguln." "Vergil." (194 of these in Carbonaria I). Moreover the numerous marks of issue, among which numbers too now occur and preponderate, especially in Group 7, are evidence of heavy striking. Often now the same moneyer uses a number of types. Under the influence of the Lex Papiria, the coinage of bronze rises to an abundant issue, then falls to the bare As and finally disappears from Rome until the days of Augustus. It is remarkable that some Asses also have marks of issue. Marks of issue, on the other hand, are missing in some issues of denarii. The determination of the denominations of bronze is here again very difficult and uncertain. For an isolated appearance of , see the introduction to Groups. A peculiarity of the group is the number of special colleges of triumviri (five of them) which are closely attached to the normal issues,39a often strike with the same types and occasionally exchange the third moneyer. Two continue anonymously with the same types and show an issue more plentiful than the normal. This provides immediately certain links between different coinages.
The order is based on the following observations. At first three denarii and bronze series are issued just as in Group 5, i.e., As, Semis and Quadrans. An occasional appearance of the Triens is not yet quite certain, but possible. In the second section, only the leading moneyer strikes the As, or it is added supplementarily. Towards the close it, too, disappears. The serrati, which are common in the next group, begin to appear.
I. With 3 denarii and bronze in continuation of Group 5.
A. First with As, Semis, Quadrans: The Triens is uncertain.
1. The leading moneyer strikes Quinarii and Sestertii.
|(55)||88/89 LPISO FRVGI (Calpurn)||sometimes Sb, L, N ROMA also RO , RA on sestertius: ELP||D Qu S||As Sm Qd|
|87/90 CVIBIVS C F PANSA||Sb, L, N on As, ROMA||D||As Sm Qd|
|87/84 C( CI) CENSO(RI)||Sb, L,Non As, ROMA||D||As Sm Qd|
2. All three strike Qu: no issue marks on denarius, but on the As for M1.
|(56)||87/90 QTITI||Rev: Sb on As||D Qu||As Sm Qd39b|
|86/83 LRVBRI DOSSEN||D Qu||As Sm ? Qd|
|86/84 CN LENTVL (Cornel)||D Qu||As Sm [Qd]|
II. M1 and M2 strike the As: There is a supplementary coinage with Quinarii and denominations of Aes. Beginning of special coinage with ARG PVB.
1a. The leading moneyer strikes S. M3 supplementary Quinarius, and the college is joined by a substitute with Supplementary bronze.
|(57)||88/89 D SILANVS LF (Iunia)||Sb, L, N, ROMA, on sestertius: ELP||D||S As|
|89/89 LE F (Cornel)||ROMA–Obv + Rev: gr. or lat. L||D||As|
|90/101 MCĀO (Porcia)||RO||D|
|MCATO||ROMA Sb, L, N||Qu|
|Suppl. AE 87/87 L ()||Sm Tr ? Qd|
1b. Special coinage: supplementary college of triumviri with a change of M3 : M1 and M2 keep their old types.
|(57A)||Silanus as above||P — Rev: Sb||D|
|Lentulus as above||ROMA P — E SC Obv + Rev: L||D|
|89/89 L SENTI C F||G PVB – Rev: L||D|
2a. With anonymous Suppl. issue.
|(58)||90/89 CFABICF||Obv: gr. L||D||As|
|87/88 L TITVRI L F SABIN||Rev: Sb, or L, or N||D||As|
|89/94 M SERVEILIC F||Obv: Ω-A, Rev: A-X||D|
|88/89 Anonymous||Sometimes without issue marks, sometimes Sb, or L, or N, or VNI Rev: LPDAP||Qu||As Sm Tr Qd.|
2b. Special coinage as above (1b).
|(58A)||Fabius as above||EX A PV-Rev: L||D|
|Titurius as above||A PV —||D|
|89/89 P SERVEILI M.F.RVLLI||— P||D|
III. The leading moneyer alone continues to strike the As; at the end only Denarii are issued.
1. Common obverse, so-called Head of Veiovis, no issue marks.
|(59)||85/88 MFO EI CF||� (Roma ?) sometimes40||D||As|
|91/104 L CAESI||D|
|85/82 C LICINIVS L F MACER||D|
2a. The As appears on the supplementary coinage.
|(60)||85/88 LIVLI BVRSIO||Sb, L (also syllables) N in combination||D|
|82/84 C NORBANVS||Obv: N||D|
|74/54 L COSSVTI C F SABVLA||Rev: N||D|
2b. Anonymous special coinage with the types already known and with suppl. As.
|(60A)||As above, Bursio||Obv: Sb—EX AP||D41|
|As above, Fonteius||EX AP —||D42|
|As above, Lic Macer43||Rev: L — EX SC||As|
3. Obvious college of triumviri. The leading moneyer has As with issue marks. This is the last of the Asses. Again, on anonymous special coingae with the types already in use.
|(61)||84/81 GAR:OG : R in all combinations||Rev: L||D||As|
|84/81 Suppl. D. Anonymous, types as above||D|
4. Obvious college of triumviri. First, all strike together, then each alone. Only denomination denarius, at the close denarii serrati.
|(62)||83/84 L CENSORIN: P CREPVSI: C LIMETAN||Rev: Z||D|
|83/84 Suppl. D. L CENSOR (Marcia)||Obv: Sb +Rev: L. Rev. N, also without issue marks||D|
|P CREPVSI||Sb, L, N in combination||D|
|C MAMIL LIMEĀN||Obv: L||Dserr|
Single special coinage:
A. With serrati, that lead to the next group.
|90/89 M LVCILI RVF||PV||Dserr|
|82/82 Q O B -B||SC-Obv: Rev: L PR 44|
B. The remaining special issues of this Group.
|86/89 M FAN :L CRT (or CRT) (Criton)||AED PL—PA||D|
|87/82 L C MEMIES L F GAL||EX SC Obv: L —||D|
|91/104 TI Q (uinctius)||Rev: L DSS 45||D|
|85/83 C CASSI:L SALIN (Jul)||—DSS 45||As|
|85/83 P FOVRIVS CRASSIPES||AED CVR—||D|
|39a||Still clearer in Group 7.|
|39b||A Triens too is known, Bf. III, 87, but it is uncertain.|
|40||So also RA for Piso, No. 55.|
|41||According to Bf. III. 126 there is also a unique coin, not described, but from its weight an S (or Qu ?).|
|42||Here again a unique specimen as Qu: According to Bf. III. 122 it is only a small denarius.|
|43||Three pieces with names.|
In the last group we found five special colleges of triumviri which were closely attached to the normal coinage. In this group such colleges become the rule. There is one special group with six series in each of which a normal issue corresponds to a special issue. The single issues too seem to run parallel to each other, as the example of Marius (cp. p.62, iteratio) shows. The bronze coinage is now lacking, and with it we lost an important principle of arrangement. The plentiful issues of serrati in the series of both kinds is surprising. Here we place the supplementary denarii of M. Volteius which were issued according to Mommsen (RM. 620, n. 451), for the five principal games. Only the last issue for the games of Apollo has a special formula; but it is very weak numerically, as its rare appearance in inds proves (BMC. III. Survey of Finds).
1a. Regular, Serrati.
|(63)||81/79 C POBLICI Q F||Obv + Rev: L||Dserr|
|79/60 L OL F S (Volteia)||Obv: L||Dserr|
|70/64 LROSCI FABATI||Obv + Rev: corr. Sb||Dserr|
1b. Special, Serrati.
|(64)||81/74 C N B B||SC Obv: Rev: L or Rev: N||Dserr|
|80/84 TI CL TI F N||SC Rev: N or A +N||Dserr|
|M RENS (Iuvent) SC||Obv: L||Dserr46|
2a. Regular, Serrati. Parallel issue of Marius.
|(65)||82/84 C MARI C F CAPIT||Obv + Rev: I—XXIIII||Dserr|
|80/79 L PAPI||Obv + Rev: corr. Sb||Dserr|
|73/64? Q CREPER(EI M F) ROCVS||Obv + Rev: Sb, L||Dserr|
2b. Special, Serrati
|(66)||Marius as above||Obv + Rev: From XXV upwards||Dserr|
|Obv: Sb, N; Rev: NSC|
|72/69 T VETTIVS SABINVS||SC —||Dserr|
|79/79 L PROCILI F||SC —||Type 1 D|
|SC —||Type 2 Dserr|
3a. Regular, almost nothing but denarii.
|(67)||75/69 L EGNATIVS CN F CN N||Type 1 without issue marks||Dserr|
|MAXSVMVS||Type 2 and 3 Rev: L or N||D|
|76/74 L LVCRETI TRIO||Type 1 without issue marks Type 2 Obv: N||D|
|77/74 P SATRIENVS||Obv: N (sometimes without)||D|
3b. Special, only denarii left
|(68)||75/82 L FARSVLEI MENSOR||SC Obv + Rev: N||D|
|73/69 L AXSIVS L F NASO||SC Obv + Rev: Parall. N||D|
|74/71 Q POMPONI RVFVS||SC Rev: Sb + N||D|
Special Suppl. Denarii with reverses which refer to the five principal games. The Special formula occurs only on type 5.
|78/88 M VOLTEI M F||Rev: Sb – +Rev.: + Sb Obv gr. N sometimes without, on Type 5 SCDT 47||D|
Special coinage of the quaestors, whose office is here mentioned.
|75/74 L PLAETORI L F||SC — Rev: Sb, sometimes without Q SC||D|
|74/74 P LE P F L N||Q SC||D|
|44||Balbus, a member of the Marian party, was defeated and killed by Sulla's legate, L. Philippus, in 82 B. C. (Liv. Ep. 86). Since he struck in Rome, his coinage must have been issued a year earlier, for the office of praetor had long been, de facto, biennial, so that the first year was spent in Rome and second in the province. From Sulla on (81 B. C.) it was so de jure as well. If Balbus struck as governor of Sardinia, we must expect PRO PR.; for that formula is old, dating back at least to the SC DE BACCHAX (StR. II. 199 f.) : in rare cases, however, "praetor" stands for PRO PR. (StR. II, 240, 5), but it must not be read so on coins. A coinage in Sardinia is on the whole out of the question. To explain the special issue, Cavedoni (cp. BMC. I, 345, n.) used the information in Val. Max. VII. 6. 4., that owing to the dearth of money, temple furniture of the precious metals was melted down. In any case it was a money of necessity.Taken by itself, the fact that a praetor was entrusted with the coinage is surprising. It is the only case of which we know. The competence of the praetor was almost exclusively legal. Even when representing the consul in his absence he seems, according to Mommsen (StR. II. 236), to have had no control over the "Aerarium". It was not till after the battle of Actium that Augustus appointed "praefecti aerar. Saturni." who were taken from among the praetorii (StR. II, 558), and in 23 B. C. he decided on tw'o "praetores aerarii" (op. cit., II. 202), who lasted till Claudius, A. D. 44. In our case we must find the occasion in the exceptionally troubled times then prevailing in Rome.|
|45||This is read as "de senatus sententia," much the same, then, as "ex sen. consulto" (StR. II. 996, RE. Suppl. VI. 801). Picks' view (in Bf. III. 162) — that the formula refers to the reverse type — is improbable, for the formula appears also on the As, where it can have no reference to the type. a prow.|
|46||Bf. III. 136.|
|47||Read by Mommsen, MW. 620, 11. 451, as "S C de thesauro": a contribution to the games of Apollo was made from the public chest. If this is so, we should have an issue, covered partly by the senate, partly by private funds. This is hard to believe. I can find no evidence that "thesaurus" can bear this meaning. Perhaps D T refers to the "senatus consultum."|
In this group we meet for the first time the designation of office, IIIVIR, at first, IIIV, then always in full. It is carried by the leading moneyer. In the next group the title is used longer. The connection with the group is supplied by the marks of issue, which appear here for the last time48 in two colleges of triumviri, the second of which again issues serrati. In the next college these serrati are struck for the last time. The next six colleges of triumviri cannot be determined either in their composition or in their relative sequence. Perhaps considerations of style might help in forming groups but care must be taken in using style. Bf II. 78 has remarked that large and small heads appear often side by side in the same issues without any possible explanation. Perhaps two diecutters with different conceptions of their task may have been at work. The head to the left now becomes the more common.
The contemporary types begin in this period with direct reference to events of contemporary history. The first example is that of Scaurus and Hypsaeus in 58 B.C. Certain dates are still lacking in the regular coinage. At best the denarii of Faustus Sulla may be dated 64–62 B.C. On the other hand, for the special coinages, we do have such dates —for Galba and Plaetorius 70–69 B.C., for Scaurus and Hypsaeus 58, for Plautius and Plancius 54. All these men strike as curule aediles, the second and third pairs at the same time. One is inclined then to make the same assumption for the first pair which Mommsen (MW 621 f.) has actually assigned to 69. In StR II 588, no. 2, Mommsen sees in Plaetorius the colleague of C. Flaminius (arguing from Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 45, 126) and takes the year 67 B.C. as a probable date; but it is certainly not proved that this Plaetorius is identical with our M. Plaetorius M. F. Cestianus.
The special coinage of Faustus Sulla is usually connected with his quaestorship in 54 B.C. This is not necessarily correct. Babelon (II. 513) has him strike with Messalla. Both were quaestors in 53 B.C. but in I. 422 Babelon adheres to the tradition whichgives 54 as Sulla's date. In the case of Messalla, it is uncertain whether the consulship of his father, mentioned on the Denarius, fell in 61 or 53 B.C.; a Messalla was consul in both of these years.
The order that results is as follows: First come the two colleges of triumviri with issue marks, then, continuing them, the third with serrati; then come six colleges in uncertain sequence; the group is rounded off by the special coinages in chronological order. The period into which the group must be fitted would therefore have for its beginning the coinages of the two aediles, Galba and Plaetorius, ca. 70 B.C. (the last appearance of issue marks suits this date very well), for its end, the Denarius of Plautius and Plancius, perhaps also of Messalla, 54–53 B.C. Since the next group probably begins in 49 B.C., our time limits will be 70 and 50. In Nos. 71 and 72, M2 and M3 strike together, in No. 72 each also strikes by himself. The same is true of No. 78.
1. Still with issue marks.
|(69)||52/54 LONGIN (Cassia)||Obv: L. – III V||D|
|64/64 C PISO L F FR (VGI) (Calpurn)||Obv + Rev: Sb, L, N||D|
|65/60 M LEPIDVS (Aemilia)||Obv: sometimes Sb.||D|
2. Last regular issue mark49 partly Dserr.
|(70)||71/54 C HOSIDIC F GETA||III VIR —||D and Dserr|
|82/74 A POST A FS N BIN||Dserr|
|66/69 M PISO M F FRVGI (Calpurn)||Obv.: sometimes Sb.||D|
3. Last serrati: with topographical reverse legends.
|(71)||72/54 AQVIL F N||III VIR – Rev: SICIL||Dserr|
|72/82 Obv: KALENI, Rev: CORDI||Rev: RO I||Dserr|
4. Veiled heads on obverse
|(72)||60/54 P FONTEIVS P F CAPITO III VIR||D|
|71/54 PAVLLVS LEPIDVS (Aemil)||D|
|71/54 LIBO (Scribon)||D|
|Suppl. D. Both together.||Obv. of Lepidus||D|
|Rev. of Libo|
|(73)||5. 69/54 L TORQVAT (Manlia)||— III VIR||D|
|67/64 Q POMPONI MVSA||D|
|63/64 C SE IL CF||D|
6. Each with two types and one name.
|(74)||61/54 CALDVS (Coelia)||— III VIR||D|
|59/44 BRVTVS (Junia)||D|
|62/64 FAVSTVS (Cornel)||D|
|(75)||7. 55/54 L FVRI CN F BROCCHI||III VIR —||D|
|57/58 Q POM (PEI Q F) RVF (I)||D|
|58/60 Q CASSIVS||D|
|(76)||8. 50/54 ACILIVS||— III VIR||D|
|54/64 SERS P||D|
|56/60 PHILIPPVS (Marcia)||D|
|(77)||9. 49/49 Q SICINIVS 50||— III VIR||D|
|53/58 L VINICI||D|
|51/60 C MEMMI CF||D|
Special coinages in chronological order.
Perhaps contemporary, 70 or 69.
|69/69 P GALBA (Sulpic)||SC – D CVR||D|
|68/68 M PLAETORIVS 51 M F CAESTIANVS||Obv: Sb AED CVR 52 EX SC||D|
Time of Faustus (ca. 64–66).
|63/60 SVFENAS (Nonia)||SC —||D|
|62/64 C CONSIDI NONIANI||SC —||D|
|61/58 P YPSAE (Plautia)||SC —||D|
|58 Obv: M SCAVR||Obv: EX SC AED CVR||D|
|Rev: P HYPSAEVS||Rev: AED CVR|
|54 A PLAVTIVS||AED CVR SC—||D|
|CN PLANCIVS||AED CVR SC—||D|
Perhaps contemporary, ca. 53.
|54/54 (Faustus, Cornelia)||SC —||D|
|53 ?/53 MESS F (Valeria)||— SC||D|
To the whole section add.
|55/58 P CRASSVS M F (Licin)||SC —|
|48||For a casual reappearance an archaism under M. Mettius, see Group 9.|
|49||For the special coinage, see infra Plaetorius.|
|50||Sicinius also signs as IIIVIR, in a special issue shared with the praetor Coponius. According to BMC. II. 468. note I, it belongs to the East. In any event it is an irregular coinage.|
We now come into the light of recorded history. Quite a number of fixed dates are available. In the regular coinage the number of moneyers increases to four. This is reported by Suetonius (Caesar 41) but without mention of the year. Also, Dio (41.4.4.) tells how Caesar in 44 B.C. was granted the right to place his portrait upon the coinage.53 Since the first college of triumviri actually shows the portrait of Caesar, the extension of the college of triumviri, like that of the triumviri capitales, is rightly placed in the same year.54 There are five moneyers in all, who now produce the portrait of Caesar. Two of them, Buca and Chilo, expressly designate themselves quattuorviri. Our previous research has shown that it is only the leading moneyer who bears the title of office. These two then must belong to different colleges. Four of these moneyers give indications that may serve as dates. Mettius has DICT IIII, Buca DIC PERPETVO, Macer and Maridianus PARENS PATRIAE. All these indications converge on the year 44 B.C. In spite then of various discrepancies, which Ganter has recorded in ZfN, 1895, 182 ff., it is unquestionable that this college worked in 44 B.C. Moreover, Macer has another type which shows Antony in mourning and which must be later than the Ides of March.55 An extension of his activity as moneyer over two years, such as Ganter proposes, is out of the question, in view of all the facts which have been considered.56 Chilo continues to strike with the portrait of Caesar in another series, now undated. He expressly designates himself IIIIVIR PRI FL. It is the only occurrence of this formula, but it is a vital one. His college issues denarii only, supplementary denarii, which I still assign to 44 B.C. Here then two colleges are active in the same year (cp. p.64). Supplementary coinages are of course frequent enough.
A second fixed point is given by the college of Varus, Mussidius, Regulus and Clodius. To some extent in the regular coinage, but particularly in the special issues, this college has one issue with the portraits of the III viri R.P.C. I place them therefore after the treaty of Bononia (November, 43 B.C.), i.e., in 42 B.C. Their special coinage bears the old formula, A P (here, perhaps, to be read as "auro publico"), with F ("feriundo") added. From now on, the portrait of the ruler becomes the normal form.
Even more indications of date are given by the special coingae. For 49 B.C. Nerius, the quaestor urbanus, is fixed by the consuls. The coinage of Caesar in aurei, denarii and quinarii with LII (the fifty-second year of his age) is very probably of 49 B.C. (BMC. I, 505, n. I.). The second gold coinage of Caesar with DICT ITER is placed in 47 B.C. Hirtius in 46 B.C. and Plancus in 45 are quite certain. Here, for the first time, we meet the prae-fectus urbi on coins. Caesar, as dictator, 46–45 B.C., appointed from six to eight such prefects —two of them for the aerarium in place of quaestors, as there was a scarcity of regular officers at the time (STR. I. 668. n. 2, following Dio, cp. STR II, 729). Apart from Hirtius and Plancus, we have other such praefecti as Cestius and Norbanus, whom I include in the same group and date in 45 B.C. The year 44 B.C. brings the gold coinage of Caesar with COS V DICT IIII. We have yet one more praefectus urbi, who had earlier been functioning as moneyer —Tivineius Regulus. Octavian probably appointed him to his office, before he left Rome 56a. That he was at the same time a moneyer —quite a young man —need not surprise us. Young men were expressly chosen by magistrates to represent them, just because no special qualifications were required (Cp. StR, I. 671, especially n. 3). Regulus on his own types has the sella citrulis (as Cestius and Norbanus had), with one or two fasces, such as belong to the praefedits urbi (StR, I. 672); but on those of his father, who was praetor, he quite correctly has six.
Apart from this the points which determine our arrangement are the following. Quinarii and sestertii are re-introduced —first issued only by the leading moneyer, then by the whole college. In the last of these colleges, in 44 B.C., Maridianus strikes the denarius only, as if to prepare the way for the pure denarii coinage which follows. As regards coinage in gold, Caesar himself struck almost regularly. Under the IIIviri R.P.C., coinage was issued primarily by the regular moneyers at Rome, then by each potentate in his own provinces. The last college is defective and shows only the portrait of Octavian. The tension between the three leaders had grown acute. The leading moneyer, Gracchus, still designates himself IIIIVIR, but we know of no colleague of his, except Vitulus. The two others did not strike, probably because each potentate by now was issuing aurei and denarii in his own domains. In their place we find the special issues of the first two moneyers. These last quattuorviri describe themselves as quaestores designati, but may nevertheless have been regular moneyers at the same time; the magistrates designate generally continued to rank as private citizens (StR. I. 590). Hence the special coinage is expressly marked S C. BMC. I. 592 thinks that the title of Octavian, DIVI F, gives us an indication of date, as he was only so entitled on the coins after 37 B.C. But BMC. II. 4 observes that Octavian's name was DIVI F according to Caesar's testament in 44 B.C. Likewise CAH.X. 22 makes January 1, 42 B.C., the beginning of the title. No reason can be seen then why this title should not appear earlier on coins. Otherwise there would be an inexplicable gap between 42 and 37 B.C., and an isolated return of the moneyers to gold coinage is improbable. With 41 B.C. the regular senatorial coinage comes to an end for the time being. Each IIIvir R.P.C. now strikes for himself—Octavian in Gaul, Antony in the East, Lepidus in Africa. One difficulty in the system of dating here proposed occurs with Vibius Pansa. He was, we are told, trib. pl. as early as 51 B.C., but his activity as moneyer in view of his sestertii must be dated later. Whether there is an irregularity here in the cursus honorum or whether our Pansa is not the same person as the other cannot at present be decided.
The leading moneyer at first still describes himself by his title on part of the denarii types.57 Only Buca places the description on his quinarii. With the introduction of gold the practice disappears almost completely: APF points to a special coinage out of the state chest. The addition of AAAFF now appears for the first time on a group of denarii of Maridianus, but seems only to be used as an ornament in the reverse type. Remarkable is the re-occurrence of issue marks, just once, in the denarii series of Mettius. It gives an impression of being an archaism, like X and earlier. The moneyers usually employ all three names —the gentile name and the cognomen being written out in full.
It would be possible in this group to assign an issue to each year after 48 B.C., and a special issue to almost every year.57a For 49 B.C., if our chronology is correct, we can only assume a special coinage. If this is so, this is the first group which consists of annual issues. The second group, as we shall see, is the final coinage by the regular moneyers under Augustus. After Caligula, annual coinage becomes the rule.
From 48 B.C. on there is regular coinage every year. With this occurs, generally speaking a special issue, particularly in gold. 49 B.C. only special coinage.
|49/49 certain||RI||Q B — Consular dates||D|
|49/49||CAESAR||⊥ II||AV D Qu|
I. 48–44 B.C. Revival of quinarii and sestertii. The leading moneyer continues to describe himself as such, but not on all types. Increase of the moneyers to four.
A. Only the leading moneyer has quinarii and sestertii; M2 and M3 strike together, for example Nos. 71 and 72.
1. 48 B.C.
|(78)||48/49f A LICINI (VS) NERVA||— IIIVIR on denarius||D Qu S|
|49/43 C VIBIVS C F C N PANSA||D S|
|49/43 ALBINVS BRVTI F (Postumia)||D|
Suppl. D. together.
|49/43 C PANSA: ALBINVS BRVTI F||Obv. of Pansa, Rev. of Albinus||D|
2. 47 B.C.
|(79)||46/46f L PAPIVS CELSVS||— IIIVIR on denarius||D Qu S|
|48/46f L HOSTILIVS SASERN (A)||D|
|47/46f L PLAVTIVS PLANCVS||D|
|CAESAR||DICT — ITER||AV|
B. All moneyers strike denarii, quinarii and sestertii.
1. 46 B.C.
|(80)||46/49 CORDIVS RVFVS||IIIVIR on denarius58||D Qu S|
|46/49 CANTIVS C F RESTIO||D Qu S|
|47/46 PALIKANVS (Lollius)||D Qu S|
|Cordius as above||SC —||D|
|A HIRTIVS||— PR||AV|
2. 45 B.C.
|(81)||45/49 T CARISIVS 58||— IIIVIR (on denarius1 and sestertius1)||D Qu S|
|45/49 C CONSIDIVS 58 PAETVS||D Qu S|
|45/46 L VALERIVS ACISCVLVS||D Qu S|
|Carisius as above||SC —||D|
|L PLANC (Munatia)||PR(AEF) B —||AV|
|44/43 L CESTIVS: C NORBANVS||Type 1: PR (EX)SC||AV|
|Type 2: PR–SC||AV|
C. Introduction of IIIIVIRI. Quinarii and sestertii gradually disappear. Beginning of the portrait of Caesar. Indications of date on the denarii. One single re-appearance of issue marks. AAAFF appears for the first time, as an addition to the reverse type.
I. 1. 44 B. C.
|(82)||44/44 L AEMILIVS BVCA||— IIIIVIR on quinarius||D Qu S|
|44/44 M METTIVS||Rev. sometimes L||D Qu S|
|44/44 P SEPVLLIVS MACER||D Qu S|
|44/44 C COSSVTIVS MARIDIANVS||– Denarius1 with AAAFF||D|
|CAES||DIC QVAR—COS QVINC AV|
2. Suppl. D.
The leading moneyer expressly describes himself as such. No further indications of date.
|(83)||43/43 L FLAMIN(IVS CHILO)||D 1 : IIIIVIR PRI FL —|
|D 2 : IIIIVIR||D|
|40/43 PETILLIVS CAPITOLINVS||D|
|42/46f MARCELLINVS (Cornel)||D|
|41/44f P ACCOLEIVS LARISCOLVS||D|
II. Quinarii and sestertii stop. Introduction of regular coinage in gold.
1. 43 B.C.
|(84)||41/43 M ARRIVSSECVNDVS||AV D|
|40/44f C NVMONIVS VAALA||AV D|
|43/43 C CLODIVS C F VESTALIS||AV D|
|42/44f L SERVIVS RVFVS (Sulpic)||AV D|
2. 42 B.C. Each moneyer strikes one series with historical types, and one with portraits of the IIIviri R.P.C. The last three have also a special suppl. coinage in gold.
|(85)||38/44f C VIBIVS VARVS||AV D|
|39/43f L(LIVINEIVS)REGVLVS||AV D|
|38/43 P CLODIVS M F||AV D|
|39/43f L MVSSIDIVS LONGVS||AV D|
Special issue. Each has three types. Revival of the "arg. pub" issues.
|L REGVLVS (as above)||— IIIIVIR APF||AV|
|Clodius as above||— IIIIVIR APF||AV|
|L MVSSIDIVS T F LONGVS (as above)||— IIIIVIR APF||AV|
|further REGVLVS F||— PRAEF VR||D|
3. 41 B.C. Defective college (M1 and M2): portrait of Octavian only.
|(86)||37/38f TI SEMPRONIVS GRACCVS||— IIIIVIR Q D||AV D|
|37/38f Q VOCONIVS VITVLVS||AV D|
Special suppl. coinage.
|Gracchus as above||— Q D(ESIG) SC||[AV] D|
|Vitulus as above||— Q DESIG(N) SC||AV D|
|57a||According to Grant, op. cit., p. 6, no S C occurs between 49 and 45 B. C.|
|51||In varying form.|
|52||In various combinations.|
|53||Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas, Cambridge, 1946. 15f., gives a new and wrong interpretation of the passage in Dio. Dio says πατέρατε αὐτὸν τῆς πατρίδος ἐπωνόμασαν ϰαἰ εἰς τὰ νομίσματα ἐνεχάραξαν. Grant proposes to apply πατέρα,, too, to χαράττω.᾽Ονομάξω, like all verbs of appellation, takes two accusatives. The first is the external accusative, the second is predicative, showing what or to what a man is designated. "Father of the Country" is here such a predicative accusative and cannot either in grammar or in sense, be applied to χαράττω. With this verb we must supply άυτόυ as reffering to χαραχτήρ (type), the substantive form of χαράττω. Grant appears to earlier portraits of Caesar on Bithyman coins; but that has no significance, for in the Greek East the use of the portrait had been common since the age of the Diadochi, and to that East Bithynia belongs. In any case this dating cannot affect our chronology, for the college is securely fixed by the facts that it records.|
|54||Lenormant, III. 167, and Babelon. 1. XXXVI, following him, believe that the end of 45 B. C. is possible.|
|55||Lenormant, III. 172, has the strange idea, that Antony was mourning for his brother.|
|56||For iteration of office, see p. 65, below.|
|57||The number of types is marked by the exponent number; D2 equals two types of denarius.|
|58||Both names appear in varying forms.|
In the twilight of the sinking Republic a closed group with names of moneyers is revealed for the last time. Then they disappear from the coins forever. This group throws valuable light on the transition to the Principate, for although the regular magistrates are still at work, both the development of this series and its form show the dominating influence of the "Princeps." During the travail of the Empire, while the IIIviri R.P.C. wrestled for power, the coinage was revolutionary, although, it is true, still based on the old right of a general to strike in time of war. Each triumvir issues precious metal in his own domain, frequently on a large scale. The coinage of bronze on the other hand remains indeed a revolutionary measure and hence is sporadic. Gradually the flood ebbs and Augustus sets about building the new order. The coinage of the capital, among other things, needed attention, for as a result of the long cessation of issue of bronze, there had been no regular coinage for sixty years, and there was a serious shortage. Augustus acted constitutionally through the moneyers. The cursus honornm had already been re-organized, probably in 27 B.C., as part of the general reform (StR. I. 544). From what Dio (54.8) says about the year 20 B.C., Mommsen concludes that (when he took over the administration of the Italian roads) Augustus instituted curatores viarum (StR. II. 1034, no. 2; 1045 and 1077. In connection with this Mommsen places the abolition of the IIviri EXTRA VRBEM PVRGANDIS and of the IIIIviri CAPVAM CVMAS.59 This then is the date for the origin of the new vigintivirate to which the moneyers belong. It is natural, then, to connect with this reorganization the revival of the activity of the moneyers.
Thus we reach the year 20 B.C. as a starting point, which was determined by Mommsen, RM. 742 and Bab. I. XXXVI by a different route. For the end of this group we cannot go beyond 3 B.C., inasmuch as Augustus on February 5, 2 B.C. received the title of pater patriae, which he bears regularly on his coins ever afterwards. It is completely absent in our group. Altogether there are fifteen colleges of triumviri, of which two strike side by side—Sanquinius, Lyicinius and Marius in precious metal, and Sanquinius with Licinius and Gracchus in bronze. This is the familiar case where the third man is exchanged for the supplementary coinage. We have now two principles to govern our arrangement. In the first place the short period between 20 B.C. and 3 B.C., into which fourteen series have to be fitted, points to an annual coinage in common with Group 9. In the second place it is evident that precious metal and bronze were issued alternately. There are also a number of fixed dates which will help us. The whole group has as a terminus post quem, the year 23 B.C., in which year Augustus took over the tribunician power for life. This power is mentioned regularly on the bronze, but only a small special issue which was struck in common by the first three moneyers, is without it. However, I have omitted it here because its composition is so doubtful.60 It would contribute nothing to our general treatment. A second terminus post quem is provided by the P(ontifex) M(aximus) on the two issues with the As only, for Augustus carried this title only after March 6, 12 B.C. For the coinage of precious metal the triumvirate of Mescinius, Vinicius and Antistius Vetus, no. 91 is fixed at 16 B.C. by means of the dates TR. POT. VII. VIII. Other such termini are 19 B.C., in which year the standards were returned by the Parthians for the college of IIIviri, no. 88, and 17 B.C., the year of the Secular Games, for series no. 90. The end of the precious metal coinage is marked by the opening of the mint of Lugdunum, which then strikes continuously. As Augustus was in Gaul in 16–13 B.C. and pieces do exist with IMPX (15–13 B.C.), I consider it probable that the emperor made arrangements for the new issue of precious metal in Lugdunum, before his departure in 13 B.C.
The relative order can be determined by internal factors. After such a long break in coinage, the heavier coinages naturally come first. First there are in bronze two colleges of triumviri with sestertius, dupondius and bronze, then two with sestertius and dupondius and, with them, two with As alone, which are supplementary issues. The first college of supplementary Asses, no. 95, first issues its own festival coinage, with head to the left and Victoria — Fortuna behind the head. A detailed discussion of this issue, especially their false description as triumphal Asses and the wrong interpretation of the gemma Augustea, will be found in my article which has been cited above. Now this festival issue must precede the ordinary one. The head to left was quite unusual at this time and continues for a long time as a festival obverse. Then there follow two normal issues which copy the head left. An internal order can be reached also for the quadrans which is so popular a denomination and appears here in a closed series of four issues. First comes the plentiful coinage (nos. 97 and 98) with three distinct reverse types. This is followed by the simpler one with four moneyers in each case. Here we can establish the series, Betilienus, Naevius, Blandus and Catullus, no. 79, in which each moneyer strikes separately and has IIIviri added to his name. This happened because at first only three moneyers were at work, then one fell out and a substitute replaced him. In the last series, however, all four moneyers are mentioned together, but the title of IIIvir is mechanically repeated. For precious metals, too, some knowledge can be gained of the internal order. The title of office is always given for two colleges of IIIviri. These are the first two colleges which coin extensively and can be dated, as we have noted, as later than 19 and 17 B.C. respectively. The next two colleges strike on a smaller scale, as may be seen from the list in Bf. Goldm. 141f. These place their titles on only a part of their coins. The last, scanty series of Cossutius and his colleagues no longer carries the titles. Indeed this was the end of precious metal coinage in Rome under Augustus.
From these results we can proceed with confidence to the arrangement of our Group.
An important question has yet to be answered: Was the whole coinage senatorial or not? Willers, p. 57f., and Bf., Goldm. 38f., following him, as also BMC. I. LXVIII, are inclined to assume a division of coinage, precious metal imperial, and bronze senatorial. This view, however, depended upon the false assumption that Augustus had been striking in Rome at an earlier date from ca. 29 B.C. onwards. That this was not the case is proved in RIC.XV. All these coinages of precious metal are foreign and belong to the East. At the same time coinage continues in Spain and after 13 B.C. exclusively at Lugdunum. Augustus in his coinage declines to imitate the example of Caesar, who struck in Rome and created a very bad impression thereby. The citation of name and office of the moneyers on both groups of metal in our period, together with the agreement in time, point to a single authority, i.e., of the senate, in accordance with the concept of the old Republic.
It was equally erroneous to find in the emphasis on SC a special contrast between the senatorial coinage and the imperial. But there is a vast difference between our S.C. and the formulae hitherto used under the Republic. In the earlier cases, the formulae were appended to the type and denoted a special commission which was customarily conferred by a senatus consultum. Our S.C., however, forms the main reverse type and is copied by Eastern bronze, which comes from Ephesus and Pergamum according to RIC.CXIX and covers the period from 28 to later than 20 B.C. This bronze consists of sestertius, dupondius, As and semis and many of the coins show on the reverse a large CA in a thick laurel wreath. This style with a thick wreath around a central type or legend, is not uncommon in the Greek sphere of coinage and in this case may be derived from the cistophori, which Antony and Augustus reissued. CA has been explained Commune Asiae. Consensu Augusti (as permissu or indulgentia Aug.) breaks down on the ground that consensus according to the TLL is used only of a number of persons. Grant (F.I.T.A. 108) now proposes Caesaris auctoritate. But this cannot be accepted. The use of auctoritas as a title for the coinage is improbable at this time. It does not occur on coins. The auctore principe to which Grant appears means at the instance of the Princeps (StR. III. 899).61 CA then designates the authority who coins. This type was now taken over at Rome, but the laurel wreath was assigned to the obverse, as the reverse was reserved for the legend of the moneyers. In place of CA, the new striking authority S C was mentioned.62
Coinage year by year. At first bronze alternates with precious metal. Towards the end there are two issues of precious metal; then the precious metal coinage migrates to Lugdunum; then there are two supplementary issues of the As. Finally the popular quadrans is struck in four colleges of IIIviri. The names no longer show any ligature. Where S C or EX S C occurs, it is part of the type (Bf. Goldm. 139).
I. Bronze alternating with precious metal.
1. 20 B.C. This college of IIIviri has also a joint issue with head of Numa on obverse and no indication of date. See p. 45 above.
|(87)||9/2363 CN PISO CN F (Calpurnia)||— IIIVIR AAAFF||S Dp As|
|L NAEVIVS SVRDINVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF||S Dp As|
|C PLOTIVS RVFVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF||S Dp As|
2. 19 B. C.
|(88)||14/18||P PETRON TVRPILIANVS||IIIVIR — or IIIVIR||AV D|
L AQVILLIVS FLORVS
||IIIVIR — or IIIVIR||AV D|
|M DVRMIVS||IIIVIR — or IIIVIR||AV D|
3. 18 B.C.
|(89)||15/22||C ASINIVS C F GALLVS||—IIIVIR AAAFF SC||S Dp As|
|C CASSIVS C F CELER||—IIMR AAAFF SC||S Dp As|
|C GALLIVS C F||— IIMR AAAFF SC||S Dp As|
4. 17 B.C. LVPERCVS
Double series, first precious metal, then bronze with the M3 changed.
|(90)||A. 12/17||M SANQVINIVS Q F||IIIVIR —||AV D|
|P LICINIVS STOLO||— IIIVIR||[AV]64 D|
|C MARIVS C F TRO 65||— IIIVIR||AV D|
|B. 12/17||Sanquinius as above||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||S Dp|
|Licinius as above||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||S Dp|
|TI SEMPRONIVS GRACCVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||S Dp|
5. 16 B.C. Certain date.
|(91)||16/16||L MESCINIVS RVFVS||— IIIVR sometimes||AV D|
|C VINICIVS L F||— IIIVR sometimes||[AV] D|
|C ANTISTIVS VETVS||IIIVIR — sometimes||AV D|
6. 15 B.C.
|(92)||11/21||Q AELIVS L F LAMIA 66||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||S Dp|
|C MARCI C F CENCORINVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||S Dp|
|T QVINCTIVS T F CRISPINVS SVLPICIANVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||S Dp|
II. Two series with precious metal, two with Suppl. Asses.
1. 14 B.S.
|(93)||8/13||L CANINIVS GALLVS 67||— IIIVIR sometimes||AV D|
|C SVLPICIVS PLATORINVS||— IIIVIR sometimes||AV D|
|C ANTISTIVS REGINVS||— IIIVIR sometimes||AV D|
2. 13 B.C.
|(94)||6/12||COSSVS CN F LENTVLVS||[AV] D|
|L LENTVLVS (Cornel)||[AV] D|
|Q RVSTIVS 68||— (EX) SC||AV D|
3. 12 B.C. Also issued as festival Asses, with head to left and Victory.
|(95)||5/7 P LVRIVS AGRIPPA||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||As|
|M MAECILIVS TVLLVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||As|
|M SALVIVS OTHO||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||As|
4. 11 B.C.
|(96)||7/6 A LICIN NERVA SILIAN||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||As|
|SEX NONIVS QVINCTILIAN||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||As|
|VOLVSVS VALER MESSALL||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||As|
III. Four issues of quadrans, the two first with all three names on one side of the coin, the third with each name separate and a supplementary moneyer, the fourth with two names on obverse, two on reverse, in all possible combinations. The title IIIVIR continues, but, de facto there are four moneyers at work.
1. 10 B.C.
|(97)||10/9 LAMIA: SILIVS: ANNIVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||Qd|
2. 9 B.C.
|(98)||13/8 PVLCHER: TAVRVS: REGVLVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF SC||Qd|
3. 8 B.C.
|(99)||4/4 P BETILIENVS BASSVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF||Qd|
|C NAEVIVS CAPELLA||— IIIVIR AAAFF||Qd|
|C RVBELLIVS BLANDVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF||Qd|
|L VALEWVS CATVLLVS||— IIIVIR AAAFF||Qd|
4. 7 B.C.
|(100)||3/5 APRONIVS: GALVS: MESSALLA: SISENNA||IIIVIR — AAAFF SC||Qd|
|58a||I have published an exhaustive article on this group in NZ. 1946, 113 ff., where details omitted here will be found.|
|59||On the interpretation of this passage in Dio, 54.26. and the objections raised by Cichorius, see my paper, quoted above. p. 121. no. 37. There is an unfortunate misprint. The third line from the bottom should read "... da� sich ... die IIIIviri capit. (nicht IIIviri) nur bis 29 v. verfolgen lassen ..."|
|60||Cp. my paper, p. 115.|
|61||For a full development of my argument, see my review of Grant's book in NZ, 1947.|
|62||Cp. my paper, p. 118, 124.|
|63||In this group, the lower number gives Mattingly's dates, as suggested in RIC.|
|64||A specimen of AV exists, Bf. Goldm. 147; he thinks it genuine, but it is probably false. Certainly it once existed.|
|65||In BMC. with Rustius, In RIC, with Gracchus, instead of Marius. Expanded to Tromentina, cp. above Group 3, note 2 (Sergia).|
|66||In BMC. Graccus instead of Aelius who is dated in the year 10 B. C. there.|
|67||Instead of C. Marius C F Tro in BMC. and RIC Marius.|
|68||Instead of Caninius in BMC. and RIC.|
|7||The obverse type is listed only in exceptional cases.|
Research in the last decade has yielded fresh and more reliable information in the field of Roman Republican coinage.1 Above all we have learned better how to appreciate Greek influence on Roman issues. The influence is even found on the Aes Grave. Only gradually have we come to the realization that the formal perfection of the cast money of Rome and even more clearly in many series of provincial Aes, bears definite testimony against any kind of primitive essay and points to Greek technique. SBf, with his judgment based on the form of the prow, the regular reverse of these coins, has arrived at the middle of the fourth century as a terminus a quo, and quotes a passage (p. 33) from I,enormnnt,2 which proves the development in mint technique. Willers (p. 28) also has made the observation that the Roman Aes Grave stands on the level of Greek art of the late fourth century B.C. and bases his opinion on the judgment of distinguished archaeologists. Altheim (Row und Hellenismus, 77f.) describes the period: "Mit Beginn des 3. Jh. treten die gemeinitalischen Erscheinungen auf, archäologische, sprachliche und geldiche Koine." (Cp. also BMC. XCVIf. and Regling in Gercke-Norden, II. 27.)
Today, the date for the beginning of Roman coinage has been brought down to a period later than the traditional one and places it at c. 300 B.C. I still believe that Mattingly's view is the most probable —that the Romans at the close of the Samnite wars with the ensuing conquest of middle Italy proceeded to issue Aes Grave as crude coinage and brought in Greek die-sinkers or moulders from South Italy for assistance in this work.
The second phase is the so-called Roman-Campanian silver, the beginning of which is quite correctly placed at the end of the war with Pyrrhus. The dissension among the Greeks of South Italy brought destruction just as it had done to Greece in the days of Philip II. The Romans became the masters of Italy and a great power after the defeat of Pyrrhus at Beneventum in 275 B.C. and the occupation of Tarentum and Rhegium in 270. Hence he Romans were compelled to strike money for use abroad and to strike on an Italian standard and pattern. There were circulating at that time in Italy, Sicily and also in Acarnania, standard coins with a weight of 7.5 (Phoenician standard—Cp. Giesecke, DMzbl. 1934. 183). Giesecke follows D'Ailly (In 177) in the assumption that the Romans had their first coins struck at Greek mints. Hands (Italo-Greek Coins, 1912, 64) and Mattingly (NChr. loc.cit. 201) believe that traveling Greek die-Sinkers performed the work just as the artists who signed their names in Sicily in the fourth century. Not only the types but the legends as well betray their Greek model. The ethnic first appears in the genitive plural. Moreover, the use of Greek letters as issue marks goes back to Greek models, particularly to the coins of the Ptolemies.
Who are now the mint-officials in Rome who issue bronze and silver? The right of coinage is that which is included in the control of coinage by the state. It is the right to make all arrangements, necessary for the organization and administration of the coinage (SWM. s.v.). Hence it is the exclusive right of the State and is naturally exercised in the first place by the supreme magistrates in Rome —that is to say, by the magistrates cum imperio (Cos., Proc, Propr, Dict.). Thus MW, 364ff. says: "Denn darin besteht ja eben die h�chste Amtsgewalt, da� ihr Inhaber innerhalb der durch die Gemeindeordnung gezogenen Schranken alle Rechte des Gemeindewesens insofern aus�bt, als dieselben nicht Spezialbeamten �bertragen sind.". As these supreme officials are never mentioned on coins Mommsen infers that the original treatment of the coinage suggests the early removal of constitutional norms. The fact that the supreme imperium was constitutionally restricted within the city implies quite clearly that a similar restriction was applied to finance and accountancy, and that in practice, the superior magistrate had no influence on the administrarion of finance. Hence Mommsen concludes that the coinage in Rome had been taken away from the regular magistrates and entrusted to special officers long before the appearance of the names of moneyers. The handling of finance and accounts had been from ancient times a function of the quaestors, who, after 447 B.C. were elected in the Comitia Tributa and appear as manistrates. They administer the aerarium P. R. (Saturni), in which among other things the public money was stored (St R. II. 544 f.). They alone held the keys to the treasury. Hence it is natural to suppose that the control over the new money was given to the quaestors. At this point no comparisons can be drawn between Roman and Greek (monetary) administration, for we know practically nothing about the management of Greek coinage at this period. It is only when we come to the moneyers themselves that we can use such parallels. Of course the quaestors appointed their own subordinates to supervise the production of coins. After the end of the war with Pyrrhus, although the conquered states were forbidden to coin, still silver was at first produced, even in local Italian mints. But the financial difficulties of the Second Punic War forced a greater concentration of coinage in Rome 3 which implied greater activity and stronger control In the year 216 B.C., Livy (XXIII. 21) reports that propter penuriam argenti the viri mensarii were reintroduced,4 this time as a Board of Three which continued until 210 B.C. (RE. Triumviri, 519). Mommsen, considers them for the most part Commissioners of Supply, but does state that they were also employed as assistants at the Treasury. They were certainly concerned with the supply of money in Rome (StR. 642. no. 1, according to Livy). In 210 B.C. all available gold, silver and bronze money, i.e., all the coinage together with bullion, was delivered to them (Matt. Rob., Proceed. Br. Acad,, Vol. XVIII, 15). I consider them the precursors of the moneyers. If the moneyers had already been in existence, these tasks would naturally have been entrusted to them.
The third phase of Roman Republican coinage is now reached. This is the issue of the denarius and its parts. Since the revolutionary researches of Mattingly and Robinson and the many subsequent refinements,5 there can be no doubt that this universal Roman currency began not earlier then the period about the Second Punic War. An exact date will probably never be established, but the period is enough. In addition to the arguments of the above authors, I wish to work out the parallels with Athens, parallels which confirm the new date.6 Under the rule of Macedon, there was practically no coinage struck at Athens. In 229 B.C. Athens recovered her independence and began at once a new issue of coins, the so-called New Style tetradrachms, which retained the old types with head of Athena and the Owl, but differed considerably from the old types in form. Some administrative details have been preserved about this coinage which extends to the time of Augustus. Sundwall7 in particular has made good use of these coin issues. On these tetradrachms two or three moneyers appear. The first have the form of monograms with a symbol attached. Then each name is written out but in an abbreviated form. In the next period there are three names which are written out in full. Symbols are always present.8 Near the end of this series two names appear again. The chronological sequence has not been settled. As in the Roman series the attempt has been made, especially by Sundwall and Head, to identify these names with the names of known contemporaries. What office, nows did these men hold? Examination has shown that two names change each year and one about every month. Scholars have assumed that the first two moneyers held their office as a liturgy and the third moneyer simply as a charge (epimeleia) from the Areopagus, which during the Persian War and nows after the deliverance by Demetrius Poliorcetes developed some financial activity (Sundwall, 49.70. no. 3; Boeckh, Staatshauch. ii. 38*, no. 237).9 Sundwall (50, 15) further remarks that into this mint commission of the areopagus, which is placed in 180 B.C., it was partiacularly such people as had already held the liturgy that entered as M1 and M2 (49, 70). M3 was the real control agent. The first two moneyers were often young men in their twenties. Iteratio of office was possible, although generally speaking it was forbidden (Hermann, Altert., 1. 105). M1 was the leading moneyer and chose the symbol (50. 17). Although the moneyers were appointed annually, coins were not struck every year.10
At this point a series of parallels with the denarius coinage are found. The administration is bestowed upon three annual moneyers who change yearly and one of whom is the leading moneyer. These arrangements, especially the number of moneyers, three, correspond entirely to the Roman administration and to the model of the earlier colleges of the triumviri, as will be shown in the next Chapter. The triumviri mensarii, who immediately precede the moneyers, may have also had influence. Directly on the Athenian model, the Roman moneyers sign at first with symbol and monogram. Gradually, the names come to be written out, at first only in a mutilated form, then complete. And in Rome, too, coinage was not struck every year. And yet in spite of all these agreements, the national and political identity of the two peoples is faithfully preserved even in the choice of types, there the national goddess, Athena, here the head of Diana of Nemi.
The date also points to the influence of Athens. The renewal of national coinage in Athens pointed to a similar coinage in Rome. Now this is just the time when in addition to the old cultural relations which have been already mentioned, a political rapprochement between Rome and Athens took place. After the defeat of Teuta, the Romans in 228 B.C. sent embassies to all the larger Greek cities, for the first time to Corinth and Athens. Many scholars who follow Tacitus (Ann. II. 53) believe a foedus aequum was concluded at this time in Athens. I suppose that the Romans on this occasion came to know the new coinage and its organization. All this tends to confirm the introduction of the denarius during the Second Punic War or shortly thereafter. If my hypohhesis—that the IIIviri MENSARII were precursoss of the moneyers—is accepted, the date 210 is obtained as a terminus a quo.
The first appointment of the IIIviri Monetales coincided with this new series of denarii. At the most it might be questioned whether the first anonymous denarii were issued under the moneyers or by the financial authorities who preceded them. But only conjectures exist at this point and the matter has no great importance because of the slight extent of this coinage. Mommsen placed the first appearance of names of moneyers in 216 B.C., but steadily maintained that the office was not yet permanent. Even earlier Barth�lemy (RN. 1847. 354) had expressed the probability that the moneyers were introduced at the time of the gold coinage, which he placed in 207 B.C. Samwer-Bahrfeldt, p. 167, think that the office was possibly introduced at the very beginning of the denarius coinage, which he still places at 268 B. C. All these estimates, which are also found in more recent works, point either to the Second Punic War, or to the contemporary appearance of the college of triumviri and the denarius coinage. A more precise statement of the problem has often been missing. Above all Mommssen's views that the triumvirate became a permanent office only in the first century B.C., has lived on. We shall discuss this in the next chapter.
|1||Cp. my survey in an article on "Neue Forschnngen und Wege in der römischen Numismatik." BONN. JB. Heft 140–141, II, and with further references to the literature, Mattingly-Robinson, NChr. 1938. 1ff.|
|2||Ch. Lenormant – J. de Witte, Elite des mon. c�ramograph., 1838, I, Introd. XX: "Et en effet, qu' on examine avec attention les as en apparence les plus grossiers, on y trouvera toutes les quailt�s qui appartiennent essentiellement aux monnaies de la grande �poche, et × l'art le plus avanc�." Details are given below.|
|3||B. M. C. XXXVI and Lenorm. II, 236 and 249; Hill, Handbook, 132.|
|4||In a critical period, as early as 351 B. C., there were "quinqueviri mens." (St R. II. 640).|
|5||Cp., for example, Milne in his review of Mattingly and Robinson's paper in JRS. 1934 and Giesecke, Antikes Geld. 159.|
|6||A general reference to Athens is to be found Babelon, Tr. I 846 and BMC. I. LXIV.|
|7||Untersuchungen zu den att. Münzen neueren Stils, Verhandlungsschriften der finn. Ak. d. W. Bd. 49, no. 9 and Bd. 50 no. 1.|
|8||Symbols and initial letters had already appeared at Corinth (and Aegina) by 400 B. C.|
|9||The Areopagus, like the "aed. cur." also had the supervision of weights and measures (Boeckh. Staatsh. 11. 318f.).|
|10||Head 379: "It is not, however, to be supposed that coins were minted with undeviating regularity year by year ... The supply was regulated by demand."|
Inasmuch as the IIIviri Monetales formed a regular part of the XXvirate, it will be of advantage to begin by a consideration of that body.11 Indeed we do not know much about it.12 The oldest college seems to be the X stlit. ivd., the beginning of which is placed (StR. II. 605) in the age which saw the formation of the plebs. The law of 449 B.C. mentioned this college as already existing. These decemvirs are recorded on inscriptions more frequently than the other officers (cp. n. 12). Inasmuch as they are missing in the list of offices in the lex Bantina and Repetundarum, Mommsen assumes that they were appointed originally by the praetor and only elected by the Comitia in the age of the Gracchi. Next to them in age come the IIIIviri CAP. CVM., who as PRAEF. IVR DIC. probably go back to the year 318 B.C., but can only be claimed as magistrates at a later date because of their absence in the above laws. The third college is the college of the IIIviri Capitales, the introduction of which is mentioned by Livy, EP. 11 in ca. 290 B.C. They were probably appointed in the first instance by the praetor. By a lex Papiria, which Festus cites and which is dated after 242 B.C., popular election was extended to this office too. (StR. II. 595).
The Second Punic War has already been established as the probable date for the first appearance of the moneyers, in part by the development of the coinage and in part by the parallel with Athens. As has been observed above, it was an office for young men of noble families. Groag's observations about the second century of the Empire agree with this (p. 8). In common with the other offices in the XXvirate, it ranked as a step to the senatorial career. These questions have now to be answered, how appointment took place and whether the office was permanent from the beginning. If an analogy is sought with the other colleges of the XXvirate, it is found that the moneyers are most similar to the IIIviri Capitales. In both cases there are three men: Caesar increased both colleges to four; Augustus reduced them again to three. The Capitales, like the Xviri stl. ivd., are believed to have been nominated originally by the praetor, since they were indeed his assistant.13 Hence it might be conjectured that the MONETALES were first nominated by the quaestos, since they were his assistants. Against this interpretation it must be stated that the quaestor, a minor magistrate, sine imperio, was not qualified to nominate assistants from the greater houses. In fact nobody has supported this view. As second possibility would be that the Monetales, like the IIIviri A.D.A., were appointed by the Comitia as the need arose. Mommsen (StR. II. 641) shares this view, for he describes the moneyers as not a permanent office until the Social War (op. cit 601). But very serious doubts come up. In the first place the appointment of IIIviri A.D.A. was surely quite exceptional and uncommon. It could be foreseen and the Comitia could be summoned to elect the men in accordance with the statutory terms. Also, it was necessary each time to stipulate exactly the jurisdiction and field of the commissioners With the coinage it was quite different, although for a long time it had been regulated according to the requirement, as has been shown above (p. 51). But these requirements, often present on a large scale, were very pressing. It would have been quite against the spirit of Roman administration to institute upon each occasion an election of coinage officiate. Once they had made up their minds to entrust this business to a special group of officials —and the evolution of the coinage suggests this course —arrangement for a permanent authority must have been made at once. The only possibility left is the third one —that the moneyers from the beginning were elected each year in the Comitia, as we concluded in the last chapter from the parallel with Athens. Perhaps there is a kernel of truth in the report of Pomponius (DIG.I. 2.2.30 see p. 7) about the creation of the individual magistracies. Mommsen has rejected this passage as wrong and useless (MW. 367 n. 5 and StR. II. 695 n. 2.). But it would be most plausible that after the moneyers were instituted as a permanent magistracy, election to the three already existing colleges should also be prescribed by the Lex Papiria. The date of this law (after 242 B.C.) ties in very neatly, and it does agree for the most part with the chronology of Pomponius, who places the XXviratte between 242 and 227. However, this determination of date must not be taken too exactly, as our experience with Pliny, N.H.XXXIII. 13.3. has taught us.
However, the objection has been raised that the colleges of triumviri of which we have knowledge were not sufficient for coinage every year. Recourse has been had to the hypothesis of a term of two years. But this has to be rejected both on evidence of the coinage and on constitutional grounds. The opinion that for many years only one or two moneyers were appointed must be completely rejected.14 Although in collegiate offices each colleague acts separately with the exception of the IIIviri A.D.A. (MW. 457), yet the colleagues always act at the same time as a college. But, if we assume that only one or two of the Illviri Monetales struck, while the others performed no noticeable activity and therefore were not mentioned, all that we have gained is the assurance that there were moneyers who did not strike. We shall come back to this shortly. As the office of moneyer was built upon entirely different principles, there would be no reason for their isolated action. In fact there must have been whole triumvirates which never struck. For the period from 41–20 B.C. in our arrangement or in any case, for a number of years between the last issues of the Illviri R.P.C. and the new coinage of Augutus, there was no coinage of any kind in Rome. But no one would maintain that there were no moneyers during this interval. According to Mommsen himself, the office had long been permanent. Furthermore Cicero mentions a moneyer who never struck. Cicero (Ep. ad Att. X, II) had a dispute with a certain Vettienus, whom he describes as MONETALIS. But no coins of his exitt.15 Hill (Handbook, 132) takes this view in saying: "An appointment does not seem necessarily to have entailed the issue of coins."16 But this does not mean that such moneyers performed no functions. Certainly it would be possible that moneyers administered the stocks of money (cp. RE, aerarium), and issued and controlled the coins already in existence as required. In a number of cases we have surprisingly rich coinages (cp. L. Piso, no. 551, L. Roscius, no. 63, C. Piso, no. 69), which were perhaps not distributed in one year. When enough coinage was available a new coinage was not started. Mommsen concludes from Cicero (De legibus, 3.3.6) that the XXviri were also employed as extraordinary assistants (StR. II. 593). A parallel to this interpretation is found in the IIIviri monetales of the Empire, who appear on inscriptions down to the middle of the third century A.D., but nothing is known about their work. Opinions with regard to their later employment differ widely (cp. Continued Existence, below). On the supposition that they must have developed some activity, all kinds of hypotheses have been set up, but it may well be that only the empty title was left as a first step in the career of office. In a similar manner, Mommsen assumes (StR. III. 609) that the IIIIviri CAP. CVM. lasted to Augustus but without official acticity.
Mommsen raised a second objection against an election every year: inasmuch as the two nearly contemporary laws, the Lex Bantina and the Lex repetundarum (in their lists of offices) do not mention the IIIViri Monetales any more than they mention the Xviri stl. ivd. and the IIIviri CAP. CVM. In his commentary on the laws (CIL. I. 22 441f.) Mommsen has gone fully into the matter and in support of his view suggests that the office of moneyer was not yet permanent. But the argumentum ex silentio17 is always dangerous and just as various conjectures are given in Mommsen's commentary why this official is mentioned in these statutes and that one omitted, hypotheses could be constructed to account for our case. Mommsen himself was obliged to state that the IIIviri A.D.A. were annual officials in the age of the Gracchi and separated them from the familiar IIIviri COL.DED. This view has already, with good reason, been opposed by RE, triumviri 515. Since no other tradition exists about the complete cursus honorum in the Repubiic18 except these two laws from the age of the Gracchi. no certain account can be given. At the most it may be concluded that the cursus honorum, which we know from the Empire, did not exist at that time, but not that the offices which were not mentioned in the laws, were not permanent.
|11||The IIIviri viis in urbe and the IIviri viis extra urbem purg. are, in Mommsen's view, much later, perhaps of the time of Caesar (St R. II. 603). Our first certain information about the composition of the XXVI virate is of Aug ustan date. (StR. I. 544. n. 2). The college is only mentioned by Festus, Dio and on four inscriptions (StR. II. 593 n. 2.). For the other passages, see StR. II. 593 n. 5.|
|12||StR. II. 544. n. 3.|
|13||Cp. StR. 221 ff. The election was at first introduced for the quraestor. For the later offices it is as early as the institution of the office itself.|
|14||On the defective college of 41 B. C. (No. 86) see that number.|
|15||In a second passage, Ad. Att. XV. 13.5., our vettienus is again mentioned as monetalis, and we read: "... tricatur scilicet ut monetalis," (cp. p. 7) Professor Mras has been kind enough to give me the following note on the passage (he also refers to Ad. Att. XIV. 19.4) "Tricae – impedimenta, tricatur – qui quidquid velit non aperte declara." Cp. Lucilus, Frag. 413 Marx: "Lucius Cotta senex, crassi pater huius . . . magnus fuit trico nummarius, solvere nulli lentus," and Nonius, p. 22, 30. Marx."Tricones morosi et ad reddendum duri." That gives us the meaning of Ad. Att. XV. 13.5: was painfully exact in his accounts and slow to advance money, as is to be expected of a moneyer. Hill. 133, note 1, (who only deals with the first passage) follows Barth�lemy, RN. 1847, 358, in taking Cicero's words as a joke. Cicero wants, so to speak, to assign Vettienus the meanest place in the magistracy. But this interpretation is forced for even the first passage and it conclusively refuted by the second. That Cicero should twice have made this supposedly joking comparison and then added "tricatur ut monetalis" will not convince anybody. Moreover, the college of moneyers must have been highly regarded in the XXvirate. According to Groag (p. 8) it was the most distinguished under the Empire.|
|16||For a similar view, See Mattingly, RC. 29.|
|17||Similarly Mommsen himself writes So the same effect (StR. II. 603, n. 3.): "... und Ciceros Schweigen von den Wegemeistern beweist nicht, da� sie damals nicht vorhanden waren ..." Mommsen in general attaches an exaggerated importance to these two laws in dating the offices of She XXvirate Cp. above.|
|18||All the passages are collected in StR. I. 561. n. 2.|
We are almost completely uninformed concerning the organization of the public mints during the Roman Republic. Conjectures of all sorts have, of course, been set forth, but they lack a firm foundation. In connection with this topic a distinction must be made between the technical operations and the administrative organization.
Since there is no direct information, only a few facts can be collected from parallels with Greek coinage, the Roman Empire, and the general principles of Roman administration. Many hypotheses have been brought forward about coin technique in Greece, but there is no certainty. Lenormant in his third volume (Book III, ch. III, I, Les magistrats mon�taires chez les Grecs') has brought together a number of these theories, but most of them are doubtful. One fact, However, appears to be certain —in part at least the mint was let out to private individuals. This results at once from the well known monetary treaty between Mytilene and Phocaea (IG. XII. 2. 1.) where the mint is let out annually to a lessee, who is responsible for the alloy of the metal. Hence the preparation of the coin ingots19 at least was a private matter. This is in complete agreement with ancient custom. In Rome they were fond of letting out official business and undertakings on lease. The societates publicanoyum, i.e., the companies of tax-farmers, come to mind as example. Mommseen also (StR. II. 639 n. I) makes a similar assumption, even if his inferences from CIL. VI. 9953 art oot valid.20 The Handbuch d. Altertk.2 (V. 2. 280) states that the production of coins was leased to a private company. Certainly this refers to the supply of metal,21 the preparation of the ingots and possibly the flans. Mattingly, R.C. 28 also shares this opinion aod believes that the contracts were as usual concluded by the Censors. Whether private enterprisers did the striking is questionable. Some information about the mint does exist from the age of Trajan.22 At that time the casting of ingots was farmed out,23 but the actual coinage was handled by freedmen and slaves. The technical direction was under the optio et exactor as well as the master of the mint and standards, who himself was under the procurator monetae, an equestrian official. The supreme authority was the minister of finance who was called a rationibus. In view of these facts, it is probable that similar conditions prevailed under the Republic, namely, that the supply and preparation of metal was handled by private business, but that the coinage itself was struck by public servants under the direction of the moneyers, who themselves were under the jurisdiction of the quaestor.
There is a somewhat remarkable passage in Suetonius (Divus Iulius 76) who in speaking of Caesar's excesses writes: "Eadem licentia spreto patrio more magistratus in pluris annos ordinavit ... Praeterea monetae publicisque vectigalibus peculiares servos praeposuit!" Eckhel (Dn.V.62.) supposed that Caesar handed over to his slaves the supervision of coined money, i.e. of the aerarium. Eckhul wrote: "non monetae signandae custodiam, sed monetae publice signatae." But it is known that Caesar in 46–45 B.C. appointed from six to eight praefecti urbi, two of them for the aerarium, in place of the quaestors (StR. I. 668. no. 2). The vectigalia, however, were under the supervision of the censors (StR. II. 434). In spite of what Suetonius says about the licentia Caesaris, no one will believe that Caesar replaced these officials by his own slaves. Barthelemy (RN. 1847, p. 357) assumes that Caesar used his own in place of public slaves for work at the mint. But against this interpretation stand the verb praeposuit, and the connection with vectigalia. Peculiares does not necessarily mean his own, but can signify special. The passage is obscure, but at least it seems to show that slaves were employed at the mint.
Struck coins passed into the aerarium Saturni under the control of the quaestors. It was stored there until the time came to issue it (RE. Aerarium).
Besides the normal coinage, there were special issues as we shall see below. At times the metal for special issues was not obtained from the market —especially when none was available—but from the State Treasury (perhaps from aerarium sanctius). This is expressly stated on a series of coins which were struck from 90 B.C. onwards. It it the so-called argentum publicum. The following formulae were used: on silver, P EX S C, EX A PV, ARG.PVB., A PV, PV, PA, P; on bronze, LPDAP; also on the rare sestertius: ELP. 24 To these may be added the examples of APF in Group 9. What does argentum publicum mean? In contrast to argentum privatum, it is the money or metal which belongs to the State.25 Since it was chiefly silver that had to be procured for the coinage, it is this metal that is especially emphasized. Hence ARG. PVB. denotes the metal which was stored in the aerarium P.R. If by way of exception, that was to be coined, there had to be some compelling reasons, and the granting of a special license. The reasons in this instance may have been the dire needs created by the Marsic War. The collecting of material for coinage has become difficult, inasmuch as insurgents, who were striking coinage themselves, hindered transport. The special license would have taken the form of a senatus consultum, as we see from the addition to the denarii of Lentulus (No. 57 A). By means of such a senatus consultum, the arg. pub. was first released for use. Then a whole series follows with this description but without the S. C.26 Here presumably instead of the emergency prescriptions of a Senatus consultum, a law existed.
The Lex Papiria actually appeared at this time. We learn from Pliny that this law introduced the semiuncial standard (33.13.36: cp.p. 9 leges). It is not known when this law was passed (RE. XXIV. 2399), but its date can be determined from the circumstances. On the bronze stands LPDAP, which may be read as lege Papiria de aere or better de argento publico (since the law applied to money in general). These bronze coins do follow the semiunrial standard. Hence Pliny's information is correct Now the tribune of the people for 89 B.C., C. Papirius Carbo, introduced the lex Plautia Papiria. The conclusion has, therefore, been justifiably drawn that our law also derives from this tribune. Further, the sestertii which are indeed rare and were struck only by the moneyers bear the formula ELP, which is expanded to e lege Papiria. Hence it has been suggested that this provision was also contained in the law. It is also natural to suppose that general permission to withdraw metal from the arg. pub. to meet the emergency formed a part of the law. In conclusion it may be stated that the supplementary coinages were issued at this period by a special triumvirate, the regular moneyers coining with their own types a special issue with the new formula. The third moneyer is often supplementary and the special issue anonymous but bears the same types as the main series. Therefore, it is believed that a clause relating to this was included in the law. The effect of this law, in general, does not extend beyond this group. In Group 9, the formula APF is found only once, i.e., argento (or, as many prefer auro) publico feriundo, without S C.
Accordingly, the lex Papiria contained four provisions: the reduction of the standard of bronze to half an ounce; the re-issue of the sestertius; the permission to withdraw metal from the aerarium for emergency issues; and finally, the introduction of emergency colleges of triumviri.
|19||By "coin ingot" is meant the thin cast sheet, out of which the flans, the discs for coins still unstruck, are cut.|
|20||We read there: "P Monetius Soc l Phiogenes vascularius. Now a vascularius is primarily a workman who makes vessels of precious metal. Hence the socii of a vascularius cannot be adduced for our purposes. The name might lead us to consider activity at the mint, but this conclusion is forced.|
|21||As further evidence we can cite the contrast with ARG. PVB. which we treat below.|
|22||Hirschfeld, VB.2 181 ff.|
|23||About lessees of the mint we have the following inscriptions: 1. CIL. VI. 8455, where a "mancips officinarum aerariarum quinquae (sic!), item flaturae argentariae" is mentioned. 2. CIL. XIV. 3642, where a "manceps aerariac monatae" occurs, 3. CIL. VI. 791, which names the five "conductores flaturae argentar. monetae Caesaris" (there is a "flaturarius auri et argenti monetae" in CIL. VI. 8456). By "manceps" one must understand the enterpriser, representing the company of farmers (RE. "manceps;" Mommsen. ZfN. 1887. 28. no. 7). From inscriptions 1 and 3 it may be seen that it is the casting of the silver that comes first into question. But, as there was no cast coinage in Rome later than the third century B. C., when the "Aes Grave" stops— in silver there was never any cast coinage at all. (Hirschfeld. VB.2 185 needs correction here)–it can only be a question of the casting of the coin ingots, which, however, were made for all three metals. The same assumption may reasonably be appiled to the five "off. aerar". We cannot, unfortunately, determine the date of these inscriptions. Mommsen, loc. cit., is inclined to place them in the third century. But the number of five "off aerar." suggests the second century, rather, as the coinage of AE became increasingly slighter in the third. In the present state of our knowledge, it is true, we only know of six "officinae" for AR from the age of Balbinus and Pupienus (cp. NZ. 1935. 24 and Mattingly – Sydenham, Roman Imperial Coins, IV. 2.165). In no event can we infer, with Mommsen, that the AE coinage too was let out on lease. To do so would run counter to the spirit of Roman organization.|
|24||The earlier variants of these formulas are listed in BMC. I. 282. no. 1.|
|25||Argentum from Plautus on, at the latest, has the general meaning of money, as TLL shows. The same is true of thr Greek, APГ YPION: Babelon, Traité, I. 386, no. 3, and especially the passage from Suidas. s. v., ἀργνρόηλον: ἰστέον ὅτι πᾶν νόμισμϰ ἐίτ᾿ εν χαλϰῷ ἐίτ᾿ ἐν άργυρῷ ἐίτ᾿ ἐν χρνσῷ εἰώΘϰσιν ἀργὐριον ϰαλεῖν.|
a. Management by Quaestors
It has already been stated above (p. 50) that, as was to be expected, the authorities who had charge of the coinage were from the beginning the highest financial officers, the quaestors. Although the quaestors were magistrates sine imperio their position had, intentionally, been made fairly independent, since there was a general with to restrict the power of the supreme magistrates especially in financial matters. (Cp. above, RWM. 265). Mommsen maintains (loc. cit. 363) "da� die Bestimmung der Münzmetalle, die Feststellung ihres Verh�ltnisses zu einander, sogar die Münzsorten, �berhaupt also W�hrung and Teilung der Münze nadi römischen Staatsrecht nicht anders geordnet oder ver�ndert werden konnte als unrerZnstimmung ... der Volksgemeinde in den Tributkomitien." But this would only pertain to more serious cases. In view of the existing development, it does appear that the normal coinage as it was determined by the community was left to the quaestor. Major changes, especially of standards or denominations, were prescribed by a lex We only know explicitly of three (cp. above p. 9), but there were certainly others. Smaller innovations, and, in particular, exceptional issues in time of emergency, were ordered by a senatus consltum, Such were the so-called special issues, treated below, p. 69. For the execution of such decrees the quaestor was, in the first place, responsible As a matter of fact, the first special coinage, no. 31, has Q EX S C. The execution of the senatus consultum is often given to other officials, the aed. cur. or pleb, the praef. urbi, from the time of Caesar, once even to a praetor or simply to a moneyer, who then places the S C on his issues (cp. p.64f). There are other special issues, with plain Q or praef. urbi, once with aed. cur., but without S .C . We might conclude from this that, in emergency, such a special issue might even be made without a senatus consultum. But that is improbable. For, even if we assume that the supreme financial authorities, the quaestor or his substitute, the praef. aerarii, enjoyed such complete powers—and there are serious constitutional objections to this—the idea would have to be rejected out of hand in its application to the aed. cur. It is more probable, then, that the plain citation of office was enough to indicate a senatus consultum.
All these considerations have led me, in arranging my material, to adopt as my first principle, the denominations because they were decided on by the supreme financial authority. The fixing of standards should, of course, be a valuable guide, but complete confusion reigns in this field since apart from the semiuncial standard, we have no exact information about their dates. For all details, see section on metrology, p. 11 above. Parallel to the denominations runs the decision as to what metals are to be used; in both cases matters were regulated according to the needs. A short summary of the results that we obtained in drawing up our Catalogue of the coins will illustrate the point well.
Group I has a great deal of silver in all denominations, denarius, victoriatus, quinarius, sestertius, since it is a new issue. The sestertius, however, is very rare, and, in the first period, is almost always anonymous. In bronze also we have the complete series from the As to the Uncia. At first, precious metal and bronze are issued by the same moneyers, beside pure issues of silver. Whenever there was a shortage of bronze a series of pure bronze was issued. The next Group carries on this supplementary bronze and supplementary silver also occurs. Later, the series of silver and bronze are separated. The smaller denominations of silver do not seem to have been wanted and gradually disappear. Towards the close, denarius and bronze series are again issued with all the denominations of bronze. The third Group introduces a new system. Since there was, for the moment, no lack of bronze, only the leading moneyer strikes the quadrans, the chief bronze denomination until the Empire (p. 12). Step by step, the bronze denominations are strengthened, first the Semis, then the Triens and Sextans with the Uncia. The last college of triumviri has the old order again — denarius and bronze with all denominations. This continues, at first, into the fourth Group. Then the denominations decline to the same degree to which they have increased in the third Group. But there are three distinct phases. They first grow weaker from the Semis downwards, then from the Triens and, at last, from the Quadrans. Again we find the arrangement denarius and bronze series plus denarii series. In the fifth Group we recognize the effects of the Lex Clodia which re-introduced the quinarius. There is, therefore, a heavy output for the most part in special issues. The As, also is struck after a long intermission. Perhaps, this provision was also included in the lex analogously. In view of the scantiness of our material, it is hard to say, how far the other denominations of bronze were struck. At first, they were probably complete, but they soon became defective, and, in the very next Group, the sixth, the bronze ceases until Augustus. Here, for the last time, the old order denarius and bronze is found down to the quardrans; then, only the leading moneyer strikes the As, and finally the As, too, disappears. Finds indicate, on the other hand, that the coinage of the denarius was very heavy. In this Group are seen the full effects of the Lex Papiria which ordered a new standard and the re-issue of the sestertius, together with other arrangements (see above, p. 58). In the seventh and eighth Groups only the denarius is struck. In the ninth Group the regular issue of gold begins, though it had long been used de facto by military chiefs. Now, however, it seems to have been regulated by law. In silver a fresh attempt is made to issue quinarii and sestertii. These three innovations obviously go back in their origin to the initiative of Caesar. Whether they were regulated by law and, if so, how, is unknown. In Group ten, Augustus returns once more to the old order—one college of triumviri strikes precious metals, the other bronze. This is the last revival of the old form. As a conclusion, that indestructible denomination of the Republic, the quadrans, is struck in two series, and then, the new form of the imperial coinage begins.
It was, of course, the quaestor also who determined the marks of value —in our period for silver they are, at first, X, V, and HS. After the revaluation of the denarius, XVI appears and is later abbreviated to (cp. Groups 3 and 4). Even these disappear later, and the increasingly heavy output of silver demands a sharper system of control. The institution of this system is again incumbent upon the quaestors, and for some time was achieved by means of issue marks (Group 5ff). Finally, the quaestor had to fix the amount of metal by weight to be used for each separate issue
b. Activities of the Moneyers
The Normal Coinage
Number. As has been shown above in discussing the appointment of the moneyers and constitutional development of the office, the number "three" must be reckoned certain from the first. It corresponds exactly by analogy to similar offices. Their jurisdiction was independent (StR. II. 592), although also ancillary to the quaestor The only question is whether all three functioned together, as Strasburger assumes for the IIIviri A.D. and Col. DED. (RE., Triumn. 515) or whether, as with the capitales, "ein Zusammenwirken nicht erforderlich war" (loc. cit. 519).27 On the coins, each name usually appears separate, but:, from Group 3 onwards, they also appear together. The same phenomenon is found recurring in Group 10, the period that is historically the clearest where the quadrans follows now one system, now the other. Other combinations, also, occur. In all, we find the following forms: each moneyer alone; all three moneyers together; all three together and also each alone; three together and one alone with the other two together; two together and all three together; two together and each alone; two together and one alone. Hence it is apparent that it was left to the discretion of moneyers how they should sign. But, as the Catalogue of coins shows, all three always strike. It may be supposed that, sometimes, each took over and controlled a part of the money to be minted, but that, at other times, two acted together and the third alone, or all three together, and so on, with all the various arrangements just detailed. It is obvious that the distribution of work in this respect was left to the decision of the moneyers.28
The Leading Moneyer. Although all three moneyers had the same responsibilities and functions, one of them was the leading moneyer, as at Athens where the first moneyer had the choice of the symbol (Sundwall, 50, 17). For this, we have the following proofs: in Groups 3–5, he alone issues bronze; in Group 3, 30, he alone strikes silver by himself, the other two strike together; in Group 4 he usually has the reverse type of Jupiter in a chariot; in Group 5 he alone continues to use the legend ROMA; in Group 6 he alone strikes the sestertius and, later the As; most important are Groups 8 and 9, where he alone bears the title of office—Nos. 71, 72 and 78, where, on each occasion, the M1 strikes alone, while the M2 and M3 strike together are very enlightening. Full proof is given by No. 83, where L. Flaminiuis expressly declares himself IIIIVIR PRI FL.
Substitutes. It was, of course, possible that, in the course of the year of office, a moneyer might drop out, in consequence of illness, death or political reasons. In such cases, a substitute was co-opted. We have the following examples. In no. 27, A Flaminius is replaced by Atilius in the second series, with XVI; in no. 37 for the new issue of the denarius and dodrans one moneyer is replaced; perhaps it was the M1 , who has struck the exceptional denominations before, who dropped out. In the special supplementary issues nos. 57 A and 58 A, the third moneyer is co-opted, as in No. 27, to replace a loss. The same thing happened in No. 90 A.
Duration of Office. For almost all offices, in Rome as in Athens, duration was annual. But, in our case, we must expressly repeat that coinage was not struck every year.29 An extension of office to two years, such as many scholars assume, is unconstitutional and finds no support from the coins. Whether iteratio of a moneyer was possible is another question. Although in Athens such reappointment was, as a rule, forbidden (Hermann. 1. 108), still clear evidence exists for the Athenian moneyers in such formulae as TO ΔEϒ and TO TPI (Sundwall, 50, 16). For Rome, StR. I. 522. states that, for the lower officers, Iteration zu alien Zeiten eine Ausnahme war." In StR. I. 475. notes 2 and 3, dealing especially with the XXvirate, a number of inscriptions are quoted, but there is no case of a moneyer. However, we cannot deny the possibility of reappointment. Judging from our Catalogue of coins, we should only assume it for Marius (nos. 65 and 66), who first appears in the regular coinage and then in the special coinage that runs parallel to it.
We have now to answer the question, whether two colleges of triumviri ever functioned in the same year. First, we have nos. 1–15, denarius and bronze series always alternating with one in bronze. The regularity and the mechanical sequence suggest that the variation covered more than one year, that is to say, that one college of triumviri issued denarius and bronze in one year, the next college bronze in the following year. For the beginning of our period this is not surprising, as people were still accustomed to use bronze and the demand for it was, therefore, great, whereas silver was still unfamiliar. Only in the case of Suppl. denarius no. 5 can there be any doubt. For that age, when the office of moneyer had just been introduced, it is better to suppose a yearly output. The same is true of the six series, normal and special, alternating (nos. 63–68); their close connection suggests that they follow one another year by year. Only for Marius must reappointment be admitted. With the late Suppl. Asses, nos. 95–96, a separate yearly issue is patent. It is not so with the following numbers. In no. 27 there occurs a second series with mark of value XVI, in which M3 is replaced. It is natural to assume here that the second issue followed in the same year, after orders for the new mark of value had been published —only the third man dropped out in the interval. We find the same phenomenon in nos. 90 and 90 A. For nos. 82 and 83, also, I have assumed that both colleges of triumviri functioned in the same year. In view of the conditions of that troubled year, 44 B.C. this is not improbable. If this is not accepted, then, the chronology must be changed. Special coinages, of course, are hard to control but I believe that nos. 57 A and 60 A were not issued in the same year as the normal coinage, for in 57 A one of the two moneyers dropped out, and L. Tur us stepped into his place; yet we find him later in a special college of triumviri. In 60 A two moneyers, of colleges separated in time, are included in a new special college of triumviri. Nos. 32 and 58 A, on the other hand, might well belong to the year of the normal coinage.
Titles of Office, The explanation of the title, AAAFF, is given in Mommsen, MW. 366. notes 2 and 3. It would be superfluous to bother about mistakes in the inscriptions asking why an A is left out or an F put in (cp.p. 8 above). These are simply errors. The first occurrence of the title known is in the elogium of Pulcher, 92 B.C. (see p. 8). The first appearance on coins is on the denarius of Longinus, c. 70 B.C. Mommsen and others after him have inferred from his coins that a permanent office arose only at that time. But thus cannot be correct. As long as the coinage lay in the hands of the moneyer, everyone knew that the signature on the coin was that of the moneyer. Special coinages by other officials only appear quite sporadically, towards the close of the second century B.C. The first is that of the quaestor, Torquatus, about the time of the Younger Gracchus. Gradually, however, these special coinages become more plentiful, particularly in the 70's of the first century B.C. It was now necessary briefly to connect by a mark the moneyer with his office. He was simply described as IIIVIR; the coins indicated what kind of triumvir he was. It was sufficient too to provide only the leading moneyer with this title of office, as everyone knew that it was a college of three. So, too, with the IIIviri Capitales, we find that they had been long in existence, before they appeared under their official title (St R. II. 595). It may be maintained, then, that it was at about the time of the Social War, or, rather, a little later, c. 70 B.C., that the designation of the moneyer became common on coins, but that this does not imply anything regarding the permanency of office. The addition of AAAFF is only found in the last Group, 10; on coins of Cossutius Maridianus, 44 B.C., it is a mere ornament of the reverse. The title may frequently be found in the literature. After Augusts, the title disappears from coins, for there were no longer any moneyers engaged in striking.
Functions. After the quaestor had fixed the quantity of metal to be coined and the denominations, it was the business of the moneyer to carry out and supervise these directions. They had to control the technical work, check the correct production of dies and attest the issues by their signature; to determine the number of pieces to be struck and to deliver the money to the aerarium. It was also their task to carry out the sytem of control by means of the issue marks introduced in Group 5. Whenever money was issued from the store, they were responsible for its proper handling; that was their only function in the years in which no coinage took place. They were likewise charged with the task of withdrawing coinage that was called in. As far as signature goes, we have seen that, following the Athenian model, at first they used only symbols. Such symbols had been in use in Greece from ancient times and represented the arms of the mint authorities (BMC. I. LXXXV). This is so in Abdera (sixth to fifth centuries) in Corinth (fourth to third) and, as has been shown above, as true, after 229 B.C. in Athens. Head, LX, remarks: "Generally they are the personal signets of the magistrates under whose authority the coins were issued." Soon afterwards came the names, —at first, only single letters or letters in ligature. Gradually, them are written out the names more fully and finally all three names are inscribed. But ligatures continue for a long time and single names occur until the end of the Republic. The signatures certainly illustrate the development of the Republican coinage and thus offer a guide to the relative chronology.
The moneyers also gained an ever-increasing influence over the choice of types. The first types, that continued stereotyped so long, the head of Bellona and the Dioscuri, were certainly prescribed by the supreme authority, the quaestor. But soon the stirring times, influenced by Greek culture, forced their way through to expression. Tampilus, no. 6, shows a second reverse, Diana in biga, and drivers of quadrigae become ever commoner. Mattingly places them in the age of the Gracchi. In Group 3 (cp. the Introduction to it) we meet the first of the historical reverses. At first, they apply generally to Rome—the oath-scene and the she-woff and twins, for example (nos. 22, 24), but later they are drawn from the histories of the families (nos. 29, 31). In Group 4, we meet for the first time a new obverse beside the head of Bellona, the head of Apollo (no. 37). From Group 5 on both sides of the coin become more and more varied. They are related to the family history of the moneyers, and it is impossible, therefore, to doubt that the moneyers had a free hand in the selection. From Group 8 on begin the contemporary allusions and the coinage concludes with types restricted to the Emperor and his house.
The Special Coinages.
Since the moneyers shared in the special coinages, they must find their place here, There are three ways in which they may arise: 1. by supplementary coinage; 2. by special coinage; 3. by a combination of the two— special supplementary coinages.
1. Supplementary Coinages. These usually appear, when a special denomination or metal begins to be in short supply. They may be recognized by the fact that they do not fit into the normal sequence of coinages of a Group, as they usually have only one denomination. Often, that denomination is an unusual one. One variety of supplementary coinage occurs as early as the second Group, where a series of bronze is added in each case to one of denarius and bronze. True supplementary coinages take three forms: 1. An entirely new college of triumviri strikes (as in nos. 5, 39, 40, 46–49, 83, 95, 96)). Twice, M1 and M2 are taken over from the earlier college and only the third moneyer is replaced, clearly because one had dropped out (27A, 58, 90A); 2. The second form shows a single moneyer, striking supplementarily. But which of the regular moneyers was in this way detached for the purpose cannot be determined. (37, 57); 3. In the third variety, M3 has a second issue with new reverse types and new denomination (no. 6). Many variations are found when a supplementary issue takes place inside a college of triumviri. Such combinations have already been noted above under the heading "Number of Moneyers." In no. 62 the three strike together, then each strikes, by way of supplement, alone. In nos. 72 and 78 each strikes alone, then two strike, supplementarily, together. In no. 61, again, there is collegiate striking, followed by a supplementary series without name, but with the types of the three. In no. 34, M1 has a supplementary coinage, without his name certainly, but with the badge associated with him. We have already discussed the question whether these supplementary coinages took place in the same year or later, under "Duration of Office."
2. Special Coinages. Where a formula or a title of office, other than that of the moneyers, appears we must assume a special coinage. It is provided for, as a rule, by a senatus consultum. The only exception, in my opinion, is for the coinage with arg. pub. which were prescribed by a lex. The commonest formula is (EX)S C which sometimes occurs alone, sometimes in connection with the title of a magistrate. But the mention of the office of the special commissioners is by itself sufficient. I have only noted two exceptions. In no. 32 the two special issues with the new number , bear no formula. Similarly, there is no formulation four of the issues of Volteius (no. 68), only the fifth one has S C DT.
Here again there are three ways in which the special formulae may be used: 1. S C alone; 2. title of official alone; 3. the two combined. Where S C occurs alone, we cannot tell what office the special commissioner held. It might even be a moneyer in office, who had to execute a special commission. Of the officials, it is naturally the quaestor that we meet first and most frequently —five times, as Q30 alone, twice as Q VR31 and four times with S. C. Next in order of time we find the aed. pleb. The aed. cur. with S C occurs four or five times and once without S. C. It is not surprising to find these officers entrusted with the task, since they held the cura annonae: the competences of the two classes of aedile were, of course, very similar. Towards the close, the praetor occurs once. This is very remarkable and I have already discussed it in dealing with Balbus (no. 62). Finally, the praef. urbi are mentioned five times, three times with S C (cp. Introduction to Group g).32
3. Special supplementary coinages. There are whole colleges that issue supplementary coinages with a special formula, as in nos. 57 A and 58 A, where M1 and M2 of the regular college of triumviri work on with a new M3 and use the formula for argentum publicum. So, too, in no. 60 A, we find a special supplementary college of triumviri, made up out of two earlier colleges. In Group 7 the special colleges alternated with the regular one. Of the triumviri in no. 85, three have a special coinage in gold with APF. In college 86, which is imperfect, the two moneyers have a special series with S C, thus replating the two missing moneyers.
The question of how all these special coinages are related to the normal issues in point of time does not admit of any single answer. In general, we can only assign such coinages to particular Groups. But there are two possibilities for more exact dating. In the case of special supplementary coinage, the series will in each case have to be placed close in point of time to the regular coinage. Thus nos. 57 A, 60 A, 64, 66, 68 certainly belong to the years following the normal coinage, to which they are related. For nos. 72, 85 and 86, it must be assumed that the special supplementary coinage followed in the same year. The second possibility lies in the fixing of special officials in their place in history. Thus we have dates of 95 B.C. for Piso-Caepio (49) of 83–82 for Balbus (62), of 70–69 for Galba and Plaetorius (77), of 58 for Scaurus and Hypsaeus, of 54 for Plautius and Plancus, of 53 B.C., in all probability, for Faustus Sulla and Messalla, of 46 for Hirtius (80), of 45 for Plancius (81) and probably for Cestius and Norbanus also and of 42 for Regulus, Clodius and Mussidius (85). But not all these dates, it must be admitted, are certain.
The great variety of the special coinages proves that they were determined in accordance with the demands of the hour, according to any such arrangements as were constitutionally admissible.
|26||With this formula there is never any mention of the office of quaestor, only once is the unusual office of Aed. Pleb. mentioned.|
|27||Cp. MW 457: Members of official colleges were independent of each other.|
|28||There seem to be some exceptional cases, which must be referred to exceptional circumstances; so in Nos. 30 and 31.|
|29||Cp. above p. 54. There is some indication of an occasional continuous annual striking. It is clear that from the very beginning, with the establishment of the moneyer's office, there was, of necessity, coinage each year, as may be seen in Groups 2. Further in Group 7 (Nos. 63–68) and Groups 9 and 10 (see the introduction to these groups). For the other groups, or portions thereof, it is not possible to determine to what extent there was continuity of striking. Likewise, in general, we cannot say whether the special issues served to fill gaps between the regular issues.|
|30||That Q always denotes "quaestor" has already been shown in the Introduction to Group 5 above.|
|31||Cp. RMW. 374 n. 25.|
|32||For a "CVR FL" (Cn. Lent. Marc.) cp. StR. II. 639 n. 3 and Barth�lemy, RN, 1847, p. 363.|
As we have already seen from the inscriptions (p. 8) the title of moneyer was still used, as late as the third century A.D., with the addition of the full AAAFF. Diverse guesses have been made about the functions of these moneyers. Mommsen, who introduced a dyarchy into the coinage (StR. III. 1146) believed that the senate struck bronze, but under imperial control (StR. II. 1028). He cites as evidence (MW. 745) the fact that Otho and Pescennius Niger had no issues of bronze. In the case of Otho, who only reigned from January 15th to April 17th, it is hard to say whether the lack of bronze really depends on the senate. Scholars, who believe in a senatorial coinage of bronze under the Empire, adopt this argument (e.g., RIC. I. CCXIX), but it is always a dubious proceeding to draw any general conclusion from such isolated cases, which might have their explanation in the disturbances in Rome. In the case of Pescennius Niger the matter is clear. In the provincial mints of the East, which can be traced from Pescennius onwards —he himself struck in Antioch —bronze is never struck, for the Emperor, as a general, struck only precious metals. On the other hand, Mommsen, in contrast to Hirschfeld 183 (though he once shared his view, MW. 745), admits that the moneyers had nothing to do with the imperial coinage. As regards their share in the senatorial coinage, he writes (StR. 602): "Ob sie (die Mon.) mit der sp�teren senatorischen an Unternehmer verdungenen Kupferpr�gung zu tun hatten, ist unbekannt." Regling, however, (SWM., "S C") rejects the dyarchy on the coinage and for very good reasons. He points out that the imperial officials, also), mention all the metals in their title and that almost all the coins with S C bear the head of the Emprror.33 Since the moneyers, for their part. very often have the full title AAAFF on the inscriptions, we must conclude that it is now a mere title. Such a development is not unusual in the history of a title. Perhaps the whole XXvirate under the Empire was little more than a form (StR. II. 601, on IIIviri capitals)).
|33||Yet Regling (SWM., p. 706 "Triumvir etc.") still is inclined to rank the moneyers as supervisors of the whole coinage. But this view must be rejected. Mommsen (StR. II. 1927, note 3) extricates himself from this difficulty with the comment: "Die unverminderte Fortdauer des Titels beweist nat�rlich nichts fur das Fortbestehen der Attributionen."|
The individual moneyers as given by Pink are designated with numerals and the letters a, b, c, etc. BMC serial numbers are given with R for Rome, I for Italy and the volume number for any others. For Babelon, volume and page numbers are used with variety numbers only when necessary. For all references to BMC and Babelon, ff. (and following) may be assumed.
|1a||R 552||II 318|
|b||I 384||I 520|
|c||R 594||I 245|
|2a||R 538||I 60,44|
|b||R 540||I 57,38|
|c||R 549||I 518|
|3a||I 117||I 53,32f.|
|b||I 127||I 238|
|c||R 288 u. 542||II 480|
|4a||R ad 593||II 161,1|
|b||R 632||I 57,38|
|c||R 793||I 57,38|
|5a||I 116||I 108|
|b||I 358||II 430,1|
|c||R 630||II 162,2|
|6a||R 625||II 208|
|b||R 532||I 258|
|c||R 557||I 250|
|7a||R 545||I 507|
|b||R 635||I 115|
|c||R 608||II 246|
|8a||R 564||I 235|
|b||I 420||I 520|
|c||R 589||I S. 55f.|
|9a||R 596||II 269|
|b||R 796||II 286|
|c||I 739||II 357|
|10a||R 756||II 303|
|b||R 741||II 220|
|c||R 828||I 387|
|11a||R 808||II 126|
|b||R 598||II 271|
|c||R 804||I 391|
|12a||R 287||I 109|
|b||I 416||I 398|
|c||R 724||I 554|
|13a||R 642||I 362|
|b||R 811||I 261|
|c||R 788||I 389|
|14a||R 620||I 285|
|b||R 618||I 368|
|c||I 349||I 156|
|15a||R 654||II 493|
|b||R 726||II 170|
|c||R 822||II 200|
|16a||R 727||II 424|
|b||R 855||I 144|
|c||I 386||II 122|
|17a||R 670||I 135|
|b||R 834||II 421|
|c||I 434||II 166|
|18a||R 623||I 458|
|b||R 660||II 101|
|c||R 775||II 483|
|19a||R 679||I 228|
|b||R 700||II 181|
|c||R 711||II 430|
|20a||I 464||II 227|
|b||I 454||II 329|
|c||R 850||I 444|
|21a||I 461||II 368|
|b||R 877||I 110|
|c||R 929||II 151|
|22a||I 550||II 535|
|b||R 867||II 104|
|c||R 848||I 453|
|23a||I 494||I 480|
|b||I 508||I 394|
|c||I 509||II 175|
|24a||R 926||II 336|
|b||I 468||I 491|
|c||I 502||II 503|
|25a||I 449 u. 472||II 288|
|b||R 885||II 399|
|c||R 914||I 241|
|26a||R 918||I 535|
|b||I 446||I 242|
|c||R 935||I 254|
|27a||R 879||II 509|
|b||R 910||II 465|
|c||I 537||I 495|
|27A a||R 901||II 510,8|
|b||I. S. 127 Anm. 1|
|c||R 904||I 232|
|28a||R 906||II 495|
|b||R 924||I 233|
|c||R 899||II 2|
|29a||I 522||I 341|
|b||I 645||I 212|
|c||I 649||II 370|
|30a||ad I 492||I 460,9|
|b||I 490||I 460,7|
|c||I 482||I 450,2|
|31a||R 957||II 500|
|b||R 891 u. 941||I 446|
|c||R 952||II 229|
|d||I 518||II 176|
|32a||R 1191||II 360|
|b||R 1194||II 330|
|c||R 1189||I 436|
|d||R 1187||II 372|
|e||R 1185||I 243|
|33a||R 1068||II 525|
|b||R 971||II 262|
|c||R 1005||II 231|
|34a||R 1180||I 263|
|b||R 1023||II 369|
|c||R 982||I 488|
|d||R 1044||I 264,17|
|35a||R 963||II 233|
|b||R 1118||I 103|
|c||R 1038||II 129|
|36a||R 1038||I 266|
|b||R 1025||I 458,2 f. u. 462,14|
|c||I 526||II 129|
|37a||R 1145||I 269|
|b||R 1157||I 482|
|c||R 1166||II 446|
|d||R 1032||I 325|
|38a||R 1019||I 102|
|b||R 1133||II 273|
|39||I 479||II 189,17|
|40||I 474||I 283|
|41a||R 999||I 194|
|b||R 988||II 164|
|c||I 540||II 444|
|42a||R 1008||II 185|
|b||R 1137||II 275|
|c||R 1140||II 3|
|43a||R 976||I 146|
|b||R 1129||II 377|
|c||R 1143||II 186|
|44a||I 532||II 187|
|b||I 530||I 456|
|c||I 590||I 118|
|45a||R 995||I 194|
|b||I 643||II 213|
|c||I 647||II 512|
|d||I 636||II 157|
|e||I 512||II 442|
|f||ad I 521||I 395|
|g||R 3271||II 411|
|46a||R 1079||I 360|
|b||R 1288||I 345|
|c||R i676||II 4|
|47a||I 555||I 525|
|b||I 733||II 359|
|c||I 653||II 235|
|48a||R 3242||II 413|
|b||R 3152||I 329|
|c||R 3238||II 382|
|49a||I 694||II 332|
|b||I 713||II 379|
|c||I 724||II 331|
|d||R 1290||II 169|
|49e||R 1076||I 475|
|f||R 1125||II 449|
|g||R 1681||I 515|
|h||R 1082||I 360,2|
|i||R 1564||II 531|
|50a||I 620||I 396|
|b||R 1172||I 484|
|c||R 1742||I 110|
|51a||I 597||I 499|
|b||R 1493||I 208|
|c||R 1615||II 488|
|52a||R 1328||II 214|
|b||R 1296||I 244|
|c||R 1360||II 399|
|53a||R 1314||II 470|
|b||R 1204||I 503|
|c||R 1435||I 396|
|54a||R 1231||I 539|
|b||R 1405||II 5|
|c||R 1725||I 327|
|55a||R 1859||I 290|
|b||R 2238||II 538|
|c||R 2367||II 195|
|56a||R 2220||II 490|
|b||R 2448||II 406|
|c||R 2440||I 415|
|57a||R 1772||II 108|
|b||R 1704||I 401|
|c||I 657||II 371|
|d||R 2364||II 504|
|b||R 1724||I 402,26|
|c||R 1642||II 437|
|58a||R 1581||I 487|
|b||R 2322||II 497|
|c||R 1660||II 449|
|d||R 2188 u. I 777||I 75f., 348|
|58Aa||R 1591||I 486,14|
|b||R 2324||II 498,3|
|c||R 1672||II 450|
|59 a||R 2476||I 506|
|b||I 585||I 281|
|c||R 2467||II 133|
|60 a||R 2485||II 7|
|b||R 2770||II 259|
|c||R 3320||I 447|
|60A a||R 2600||II 8,6|
|b||R 2483||I 507,12|
|c||R 2470||I 133,17|
|61a-c||R 2606||I 532, II 266 u. 529|
|d||R 2622||I 77 u. 226|
|62a-c||R 2634||II 195,25|
|d||R 2657||II 195|
|e||R 2664||I 441|
|f||R 2716||II 173|
|62A a||R 1613||II 150|
|b||R 2730||I 158|
|62Ba||R 2463||I 493|
|b||R 2421||II 216|
|c||I 566||II 394|
|d||R 2473||I 328|
|e||R 2604||I 526|
|63a||R 2896||II 334|
|b||R 3142||II 568|
|c||R 3394||II 402|
|64a||R 2916||II 248|
|b||R 3096||I 349|
|65a||R 2844||II 202|
|b||R 2977||II 280|
|c||R 3335||I 439|
|66a||R 2853||II 203,8|
|b||R 3370||II 532|
|67a||R 3274||I 473|
|b||R 3245||II 152|
|c||R 3208||II 420|
|68a||R 3293||I 493|
|b||R 3348||I 247|
|c||R 3331||II 366|
|d||R 3145||II 565|
|e||R 3312||II 309|
|f||R 3329||I 419|
|69a||R 3929||I 332|
|b||R 3654||I 300|
|c||R 3638||I I27|
|70a||R 3386||I 547|
|b||R 2836||II 381|
|c||R 3623||I 299|
|71a||R 3364||I 213|
|b||R 3358||I 512|
|72a||R 3851||I 509|
|b||R 3373||I 122|
|c||R 3377||II 427|
|d||R 3383||I 123|
|73a||R 3511||II 180|
|b||R 3602||II 361|
|c||R 3816||II 452|
|74a||R 3833||I 372|
|b||R 3861||II 113,30 f.|
|c||R 3824||I 421|
|75a||R 3896||I 528|
|b||R 3863||II 338|
|c||R 3868||I 330|
|76a||R 3943||I 106|
|b||R 3907||II 474|
|c||R 3890||II 197|
|77a||R 3947||II 460,5|
|b||R 3923||II 551|
|c||R 3937||II 218|
|77Aa||R 356||II 473|
|b||R 359||II 312|
|c||R 3820||II 256|
|d||R 3830||I 376|
|f||R 3876||I 120|
|g||R 396||II 324|
|h||R 3920||II 317|
|i||R 3909||I 424,63|
|k||R 3927||II 514|
|1||R 3901||II 134|
|78a||R 3999||II 136|
|b||R 3973||II 545|
|c||R 3962||II 384|
|d||R 3987||II 385,2|
|79a||R 4018||II 283|
|b||R 3989||I 552|
|c||R 4004||II 526|
|d||II 470,36||II 13,15|
|80a||R 4037||I 383|
|b||R 4029||I 155|
|c||R 4011||II 148|
|d||R 4040||I 383,3|
|e||R 4050||I 543|
|81a||R 4056||I 314|
|b||R 4080||I 377|
|c||R 4099||II 518|
|d||R 4070||I 314,3|
|e||R 4118||II 239|
|f||R 4191||I 340|
|82a||R 4152||I 124|
|b||R 4135||II 224|
|c||R 4164||II 439|
|d||R 4185||I 438|
|e||R 4129||II 19|
|83a||R 4198||I 496|
|b||R 4217||II 291|
|c||R 4206||I 427|
|d||R 4211||I 100|
|84a||R 4209||I 220|
|b||R 4215||II 264|
|c||R 4995||I 344|
|d||R 4204||II 474|
|85a||R 4292||II 548|
|b||R 4260||II 142|
|c||R 4278||I 355|
|d||R 4229||II 241|
|e||R 4255||II I42,2f.|
|f||R 4276||I 346, 20f.|
|g||R 4226||II 244, 10f.|
|h||R 4261||II 1438|
|86a||R 4333||II 432|
|b||R 4306||II 560|
|87a||R 4621||I 306|
|b||R 4626||II 249|
|c||R 4634||II 327|
|88a||R 4512||II 294|
|b||R 4542||I 215|
|c||R 4558||I 468|
|89a||R 4994||I 222|
|b||R 4501||I 337|
|c||R 4508||I 529|
|90a||R 4583||II 417|
|b||R 4592||II 138|
|c||R 4643||II 204|
|90A a||R 4588||II 418,4f.|
|b||R 4595||II 139, 30f.|
|c||R 4611||II 436|
|91a||R 4479||II 219|
|b||R 4471||II 552|
|c||R 4489||I 151|
|92a||R 4613||I 112|
|b||R 4589||II 198|
|c||R 4601||II 395|
|93a||R 4676||I 311|
|b||R 4653||II 476|
|c||R 4660||I 149|
|94a||R 4671||I 430|
|b||R 4674||I 431|
|c||R 4579||II 412|
|95a||R 4699||II 154|
|b||R 4682||II 159|
|c||R 4489||II 415|
|96a||R 4663||II 140|
|b||R 4667||II 257|
|c||R 4665||II 522|
|97||R 4617||I 142|
|98||R 4574||I 358|
|99a||R 4707||I 257|
|b||R 4709||II 251|
|c||R 4711||II 404|
|d||R 4712||II 524|
|100||R 473||I 210|