THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

By H. MATTINGLY.

My object in this paper is to present to students of Roman

history a general view of the imperial coinage from Augustus to
Vespasian,1 not of course in all its details, but mainly with reference
to (I) the mints at which and (2) the authorities by whom it was
issued. It is a subject on which recent numismatic research has
yielded novel and interesting results, which are probably not yet
familiar outside specialist circles. My conclusions are based mainly
on independent research work, conducted in the Medal Room of
the British Museum, in the years I912-1914; but I gratefully
acknowledge my debt to fellow-workers in the field-M. Mowat,
E. Gabrici, the Rev. E. A. Sydenham, to name only a few- above all
to L. Laffranchi, who has worked out in detail a number of points
which I have only had time to raise and to whose work I shall have
more than once to refer. 2
Under the republic the coinage had been in the main in the
hands of the senate. That body, through the agency of the minor
magistrates, the III viri a. a. a. f. f., issued silver and brass from the
city mint, and further controlled the issue of similar coins-mainly
for military purposes-in other parts of Italy. From about 83 B.C.
onwards there grew up, beside the senatorial, a new class of issue-
the so-called ' military' coinage, struck by generals in the provinces
for the pay of their troops. Probably, in theory, this coinage too
was at first subject to the authority of the senate ; but it soon became
emancipated from any such check, and the right of coinage became
'
recognised, de facto, as part of the powers of a holder of imperium'
in a province. In this we see the first germs of the imperial coinage.
A further stage was reached when Julius Caesar, on entering Rome
in triumph in 49 B.C., struck coins in Rome itself in his quality of
'imperator.' The silver he soon entrusted to the regular magistrates,
but the gold he retained in his own hands until his death.3 'In 44 B.C.
'I leave out of account p. 53 ff, 'The Mint of Lugdunum', E. Gabrici,
(a) The local city issues, the pseudo-autono- 'La Numismatica di Augusto' in Milani's Studi e
mous series authorised by the imperial govern- Matcriali di Archeologia e Numismatica: M. Mowat,
ment. 'Les Ateliers monetaires imperiaux en Gaule,' in
(b) The special provincial issues of AR and LE Revue Nunzisnmatique,I895, I43 ff.
(e.g. in Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt), which, though 3 Roman coinage in gold (apart from the excep-
probably official issues of the government, were tional issue during the Hannibalic War) originated
only designed for local circulation. in the provincial issues of Sulla, Pompey and other
If I have occasion to refer to such issues, I shall generals. Julius Caesar was the first to strike gold
expressly mention the fact. in Rome, and it was only after his death that its
For more detail cp. E. A. Sydenham, N.C. I917, issue was entrusted to the regular moneyers.
6o THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

yet another stage was reached when the senate directed that the head
of Caesar should be placed on the coinage. This precedent, once
established, was not forgotten; the heads of Antony, Octavian and
Lepidus, as triumvirs, subsequently appear on the city, as well as
on the provincial, issues, and even the republican Brutus allowed
his head to appear as obverse type on his provincial coins. Here,
as in so many other departments, Augustus found all the raw material
of empire ready to hand; it was his task to select what best fitted
his purposes.
About 36 B.C. the senatorial mint of Rome ceased to issue gold
and silver2_it had issued no bronze since about 82 B.C.3 ; between
36 B.c. and 3I B.C. the only Roman coinage was the provincial gold,
silver and brass issued by Antony in the East and the provincial
gold and silver issued by Octavian in the West.4 After his victory
at Actium and subsequent settlement of the troubled world, Augustus
found the question of the coinage still awaiting a final solution.
In the distribution of powers between emperor and senate, to which
of the two was the coinage to be assigned ? Augustus worked slowly
and tentatively towards a definite settlement. From 31 B.C. to
about 14 B.C. he supplied the demand for gold and silver by provincial
'
issues, authorised by himself in his quality of imperator,' issue.
precisely similar to those of the generals of the late republic. The
exact places of striking are hard to determine, but the general fact
is certain, and, what deserves especial attention, Augustus did not
either now or later in his reign strike in his own right in Rome.5
The arguments against an imperial mint at Rome are very strong:
(a) From the purely numismatic point of view, no series must be
assigned to Rome, as none shows the typical Roman style.
(b) Names of moneyers are missing (except on the small series
we shall shortly discuss), clear evidence that the senatorial mint
was not working. Augustus had no inherent right to coin in Rome,,
and we have no evidence of the conferment of any such right on him.
(c) The coins exhibit many varieties of style and clearly belong to
a variety of mints-some, perhaps, purely provisional. Comparison
of the gold and silver with local copper issues helps us to place the
different series.
1 The Civil Wars of of such currency must have been acutely felt in the
49-45 B.C. practically
destroyed the senate's prerogative of coinage. closing years of the republic.
For, apart from the usurpation of Julius Caesar, 4 ' Provincial' here means ' struck in a pro-
the senate was quite unable to control the actions vince,' not 'limited in circulation to one particular
of its own supporters, who struck coins for their province.'
5
troops as occasion demanded. cp. here Laffranchi, Riv. Ital. I9I2, I3, I4, i6,
I7, ' La Monetazione di Augusto." He assigns.
2 The the gold and silver of this period to Nicomedia and
moneyers' names cease to appear on the
coins and the style and fabric too shows a marked Nicaea in Bithynia, to Ephesus and uncertain
change after this date. mints in Phrygia and Lycia, and to Emerita,
Colonia Patricia and Caesaraugusta in Spain.
3
The reason for this suspension of coinage is His researches have undoubtedly advanced our
unknown. The sons of Pompey issued bronze in knowledge very considerably and deserve the-
Spain, as did Antony in the East; but the lack fullest recognition.
 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

(d) The subsequent history of the imperial coinage fully confirms

this view.
The question of the token coinage still remained.
As we have seen, the demand for new currency must have been
very strong, and in 23 B.C. Augustus allowed the senatorial mint of
Rome to reopen to strike in the base metals. The first coins issued
bore the names of the moneyers and the portrait of Augustus. All
later issues, of this and subsequent years, however, bear on the reverse
the significant letters s.c. (Senatus consulto). It appears probable
that the first reissues of brass from the senatorial mint raised the
whole question of token coinage, that Augustus, deferring to public
opinion, renounced all direct influence over it and placed it definitely
under the charge of the senate, and that, partly to publish this fact,
partly to mark the coinage as something more than a local Roman
one, the letters s.c. were adopted as an invariable part of the reverse.
There were further issues in 22, 21, I5 and I2-circa 7 B.c.; there
was then a long interval and the next issue belongs to nearly the end
of Augustus's reign; the names of moneyers are missing here and
never reappear-it was probably felt that they were out of place on
a coinage designed, for general circulation, the senate's stamp s.c.
being now the important distinguishing feature. 1
Some years after the reopening of the senatorial mint for copper,
we are surprised by a sudden and short-lived revival of gold and
silver, bearing moneyers' names-clearly the product of this same
mint of Rome. We can only guess at the motives that prompted
Augustus to allow the issue. It is probable that, although the senate
had issued no gold or silver since about 36 B.c., Augustus had not
claimed for himself the monopoly of that coinage. He had, as yet,
no final settlement to show and, if Roman conservatives urged that
Rome had as much right to gold and silver of its own as the pro-
vinces of Spain or Asia, he may have foundno answer ready and
chosen rather to cede a point gracefully. 2

1 In this brief summary I have to pass lightly
over a mass of details, some of them matters of
dispute. The chronology of this coinage has been
fixed, with great accuracy, by Willers in his
Geschichte der rimischen Kupferpr?igung vom
Bundesgenossenkrieg bis auf Kaiser Claudius,
Leipzig, I909. Mention of the emperor on these
coins is invariable, though the portrait as obverse
is at first regular only on the as; later it became
the rule for all but the smallest denominations.
The interesting and difficult questions of the
standards of weight, the relation of the orichalcum
to the copper, etc. lie outside the scope of my
present paper.
2 This series of aurei and denarii gives us the
names of fifteen moneyers-presumably five different
colleges. The dates assigned have usually been
about I9-I5 B.C. ; in a paper awaiting publication,
I have tried to prove that the coinage certainly
continued down to I3 B.C. and may not have
commenced till I7 B.C. The presence of the
moneyers' names is proof that the coinage was,
formally speaking, senatorial, not imperial; but
we shall probably be right in holding that a certain
supervision was exercised by the emperor.
Mommsen, working on a plausible assumption,
now proved false, fixed the year 15 B.c. as that in
which Augustus
(I) confirmed the senate in its monopoly of
token coinage;
(2) excluded it from any share in coinage in the
precious metals. It is certain, to-day, that this
settlement was made in gradual stages, not by a
single legislative act. Mommsen, apparently,
never even entertained a doubt that the main
imperial mint was from the first in Rome. Here
again recent research has fresh light to throw on
the old problem.
62 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

But Augustus had clearly no intention of sharing this part of the-

coinage with the senate. He had his plans for a thorough solution
of the question and, those plans once carried through, he risked
offending the conservatives and definitely withdrew from the senate
the right of striking in gold and silver. Probably in 14 B.c. Augustus
put an end to the period of many provincial mints and established
Lugdunum, the capital of Gaul, as the one great mint to issue gold
and silver for the whole empire. Antony had issued coins there
and Augustus, as triumvir and perhaps also as emperor, had followed
his example. The city was rapidly growing in importance and, as
the capital of the chief western province, had special claims to be
chosen as the site for the imperial mint. The mints of Spain and
Asia Minor were closed, and, for the rest of the reign of Augustus
and the whole of the reign of Tiberius, all imperial gold and silver
was issued from Lugdunum. Numismatic evidence combines with
historical to make this interesting thesis practically certain. The
main points are:

A. Numismatic.
(I) From about 14 B.C. onwards all the gold and silver of
Augustus shows only one style and one fabric, i.e. is presumably the
product of one mint. There are, it is true, coins of crudei style
and fabric than the ordinary, but these are certainly to be regarded
as unofficial imitations of the official currency.
(2) This style and fabric very closely resembles that of the brass
and copper of the famous 'Altar' type-a fine series, issued, it
appears, for special use throughout the Gallic provinces ; it is unlike
that of the brass and copper struck by the senate at Rome.
The inference is that this series of gold and silver was the product
of one mint, and that mint Lugdunum.

B. Historical.
(I) Strabo, bk. iv, 3, 2, writing about A.D. i8 says:
'And there (viz. at Lugdunum) the Roman emperors (Yye6'dvEs)
strike their gold and silver '-a plain statement which turns out
to be literally correct, though it has been strangely twisted
and tortured by modern scholars. There is no break in the con-
tinuity of the imperial coinage between I4 B.c. and A.D. I8, and
Strabo's statement, therefore, carries back as far as the earlier year.
(2) There are no inscriptions of the early empire referring to
imperial mint officials at Rome; there are several referring to such
officials at Lugdunum (cp. C.I.L. xiii, I499, and under Lugdunum
section).
(3) We know from Dio (liv. 21) that the freedman Licinus, the
notorious procurator of Augustus in Gaul, won his master's approval.
 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE. 63

by collecting for him vast quantities of gold and silver bullion (date
15 B.C.) This reads like definite evidence of preparations for the
opening of a great Gallic mint.
(4) The urban cohort stationed at Lugdunum was certainly
closely connected with the mint; cp. C.I.L. xiii, I499: miles
cohortis XIII 1 urbanae ad monetam.
Further evidence could be adduced, but that already given
appears to me quite decisive. It is of course conceivable that coins,.
indistinguishable from the Lugdunum issues, may have been struck
from Lugdunum dies at subordinate mints throughout the empire.
But there is no evidence of this, and, in any case, the fact would
stand that Lugdunum was the one independent mint then working.
Tiberius, in fact, in the matter of coinage as in so much else,.
faithfully followed the precedent set by Augustus and allowed his
arrangements to work on unmodified. But under his successor an
important change took place. Caligula, probably in A.D. 38, com-
menced to issue imperial gold and silver from Rome; the mint of
Lugdunum was apparently not closed, but was reduced to being a
branch of the Roman mint. In A.D. 18, we have seen, the imperial
mint was at Lugdunum; there is no indication of a change of mint
up to the death of Tiberius in A.D. 37. But, as early as A.D. 54
(accession of Nero), there was an imperial mint of Rome; the EX
s.c. which appears practically invariably on the early gold and
silver of Nero is proof of this (see below). The coins of Claudius
are so close in style and fabric to those of Nero, that they must be
assigned to the same mint, i.e. Rome. The change then must fall
in the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37-41). Other evidence confirms this
deduction, for
(I) A distinct change of style is discernible in the second year
of Caligula's reign; his gold and silver mark a definite transition
from those of Tiberius to those of Claudius.
(2) A change of this kind, calculated to offend Roman conserva-
tives, is fully in keeping with the general policy of Caligula, after the
first few months of his reign.
Laffranchi would date the opening of the mint of Rome to A.D.
33; both from the numismatic and historical point of view, I think
my suggestion more likely. Was the mint of Lugdunum closed ?
The coins of Claudius and Nero do not group themselves into two
clearly defined series-one for Rome, one for Lugdunum-and we
must conclude that there were not two independent mints working.
But it is very nearly certain that Lugdunum was issuing coins at the
end of the reign of Nero, and we shall probably be right in concluding
that the mint was never closed (see below) but that it worked in
such close connexion with that of Rome that no clear distinction
of style appears on its coins (C.I.L. xiii, I499, referring to a ' miles.
1 Or " XVII ": the number is disputed.
.64 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

cohortis XIII urbanae ad monetam,' probably belongs to the reign

of Claudius).1
The relation of this new imperial mint to the senatorial mint
cannot be precisely deterrin, d, but it is probable that the two, to
some extent, wo ked together, for
(I) This, a priori, would be more economical and convenient.
(2) The gold and silver, from the reign of Caligula onwards,
show a much greater likeness to the brass and copper than before,
notably in the imperial portrait on the obverse. And the distinctive
change in style now observable looks a little in the direction of the
later republican issues.
Claudius appears to have accepted and carried on the system of
Caligula. But, on the accession of Nero, a reactionary reform was
effected. Constitutional Government' was the watchword of
the young emperor, or rather of his tutors, Seneca and Burrhus.
Apply the constitutional theory to the coinage, and the striking of
coins by the 'impelator ' in Rome itself is seen to be a usurpation. 2
The senate therefore asserted and made good its right to sanction
all issues of gold and silver in Rome, and, as a mark of this, the letters
EX s.,C.' now appear constantly on the reverses of the imperial
gold and silver.
But this conservative reaction was succeeded by a more violent
change in the opposite direction. Nero, as he gradually grew out
of tutelage and became his own master, lost touch more and more
completely with the senate and, in fact, with all conservative senti-
ment in Rome. A great reform of the coinage, carried out probably
in the year A.D. 63, though no doubt determined largely by practical
considerations, marks this change of sentiment too. With many
features of these reforms we cannot now deal; the main points that
concern us here are these:
(I) Nero practically took the whole Roman coinage under imperial
management. The EX s.c. disappears from the reverse of the
gold and silver; the right of the senate to a control over coinage in
these metals is finally denied. The imperial portrait on all metals
is now essentially the same-evidence of a close co-operation between
the two mints. The way to this change was already indicated, when
in A.D. 57 Nero placed the' aerarium Saturni,' and with it, we may
1 It has been pointed out to me that my argu- wasstill felt as suchis evident from the facts quoted
ment here seems to conflict with my argument above.
against the mint of Rome earlier in the article. 3 Some gold quinarii of Nero lack the EX
But here there is definite evidence of the s.c.-why we do not know (possibly they were
Lugdunum mint on both sides of the period of struckat a mint other than Rome). But this one
apparent inaction; in the case of the mint of exception cannot affect our general contention.
Rome, evidence for its institution was shown If this series, marked EX s.c. was issued at
to be lacking. Lugdunum,as well as at Rome, we must certainly
regardLugdunumas being merely a branchmint;
2Whether Caligula or Claudius ever sought for even the self-assertivesenate of Nero's early
to justify the usurpationby callingupon the senate years could hardly have claimed control over the
to sanctionit, we do not know. That the usurpation coinageof the ' imperator' in his own provinces.
 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE. 65

reasonably suppose, to some extent the Roman mint, under

'praefecti'-senators indeed, but senators appointed by the emperor
himself.
It is extremely probable, judging from the coins themselves,
that Nero made large alterations in the personnel of the mint,
probably introducing a new succession of artists from the Greek
East.
(2) Some of Nero's brass coins actually omit the s.c. on the
reverse. (The same feature is seen in the coinage of other emperors,
but in no case to anything like the same extent.) It is highly prob-
able that we see here an experiment on the part of the emperor;
he wished to take over the token coinage entirely, but was timid
of public opinion and, finding it against him, left the senate the
nominal control.
(3) Brass and copper bearing the letters s.c. are now issued from
the Lugdunum mint. This was certainly no concession to the
senate-rather, one indication the more that the token coinage was
regarded by Nero as his in all but name.
Augustus and Tiberius had issued the fine coins, with the 'Altar'
reverse as a special currency for Gaul. (Possibly, in name if not
in real fact, the series was issued by the ' Concilium Galliarum.' 1)
It is doubtful whether this coinage outlasted the early years of
Tiberius; the coins of Claudius and Nero, with that reverse, are
not above suspicion (the Rev. E. A. Sydenham thinks that of Claudius
genuine).
For the new issue of the S.C. series under Nero there is convincing
evidence :
(a) Among the brass and copper of Nero, one group, distinguished
by peculiar portrait and style, stands out so clearly as to suggest
a
a separate mint. A regular feature is a small ball below the neck. 2
(b) Coins of this group frequently (other brass and copper of
Nero, so far as I know, never) bear the countermarks 'PR' (POPVLVS
' There is little
ROMANVS), SPQR (SE.NATVSPOPVLVSQVE ROMANVS).
doubt that these countermarks were used by Vindex and his
supporters, and we have good reason therefore for regarding the
group as a special issue for Gaul-presumably from the mint of
Lugdunum.
The date when this coinage commenced is uncertain; A.D. 63,
the year of the Reform, appears to me the most likely. M. Mowat
argues' for A.D. 58, the Rev. E. A. Sydenham for a date as early as
A.D. 33 or perhaps a little later under Claudius. It seems to be
improbable that it started before Nero; for it was not till his reign
that the emperor controlled the token coinage, and the senate, in
its own right, had no sort of place in an imperial province.
1 2 For the symbolism of the globe in imperial
cp. Willers, op. cit. p. 187 ff.
portraiture see Mrs. Strong in 7.R.S. (I916), i, p. 32 ff.
66 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

(4) The reduction in weight of aureus and denarius, the debase-

ment of the denarius, the reorganisation of the token coinage were
no doubt reforms for which good reasons could be found. But
they were certainly serious innovations, and it is fairly clear that
they were made entirely on the initiative of the emperor and his
advisers, without regard to the senate.
It may be observed in passing that none of Nero's brass appears
to have been struck before about A.D. 60, and very little before
A.D. 63; it is mainly post-Reform in date.
The violent political disturbances of the Civil Wars (A.D. 68-69),
before and after the death of Nero, are faithfully represented in the
coinage. Coins were one of the main forms of political propaganda,
by which a new Emperor or cause could be announced and a new
programme published, and, in this period, they form a fascinating
appendage to the history. For convenience I will speak first of the
gold and silver, afterwards of the copper. Vindex, rising against
Nero in Gaul in the name of the Roman republic, strikes coins,
without an emperor's head, with constant appeal to SPQR (Senatus
populusque Romanus) and with such legends as 'ROMA RENASCENS,
'MARS VLTOR, ( GENIUS P. R. SALVS GENERIS HVMANI. 1 Galba,
joining in the movement of Vindex, institutes similar issues in
Spain; then, when, after all had seemed lost, Nero fell and Galba
himself was acknowledged emperor, he strikes in his own name first
as ' IMPERATOR' only, then with the full imperial titles. These
series were the products of several mints, Gallic and Spanish-
mostly provincial and short-lived; but Galba's main Spanish mint-
probably at Tarraco-continued striking till after the accession of
Vespasian. The mint of Rome struck with Galba's portrait from
the time of Nero's death; the mint of Lugdunum, which, during
the revolt of Vindex, apparently lost touch with that of Rome,
only struck very scantily with the portrait of Galba ; probably the
Lugdunum officials, remaining loyal to Nero to the end, were slow
to advertise the new ruler, and Galba, as a punishment, closed the
mint.2 So too L. Clodius Macer, revolting in Numidia against Nero
and then against Galba, struck in old republican fashion as ' pro-
praetor Africae,' probably at Carthage; a few coins were issued from
1 For a detailed discussion of the intricate mint and so enable us to pick out the Roman
coinage of this period, I must refer to my article issues of Galba, Vitellius and Vespasian. From
in the NunmismnaticChronicle, I9I4. From a Galba to Vespasian there is a clear difference of
numismatic point of view, the period is a fascin- style between the issues of Rome and Lugdunum,
ating one to study, and it requires some self-denial such as we look for in vain under Caligula, Claudius
on my part to spare my readers the detailed evidence and Nero.
here. The main facts are fairly well assured; The arguments for the closing of the Lugdunum
where there is serious doubt, I have indicated it mint are:
by qualifying my statements. (a) The paucity of issues in Galba's name from
2 We can identify the Lugdunum issues of the the mint.
period by a comparison of coins of Galba and (b) The natural indignation of Galba against a
Vespasian with those of Vitellius, whose Lug- city that had defied him almost up to the last. It
dunum issues can be fixed with certainty; similarly is a plausible 'theory, but cannot be considered
the coins of Otho show us the style of the Roman proved as yet.
 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE. 67
the samemint after Macer'sfall in Galba'sname. Otho's main issues
were confinedto Rome, but it is probablethat a few coins were issued
with his portrait from Narbo, before that city with its province'
went over to Vitellius. The discontent of the legions of the Rhine
dated much further back than their actual rising in January, 69;.
the period of disaffection preceding revolt is represented by an
interesting series of coins-frankly treasonable,'in their omission of
all reference to Galba-with such legends as 'FIDES EXERCITVVM,
'FIDES PRAETORIAN'ORVM, 'VESTA P. R. QVIRITIVM.The mint
is not certain; it may have been at Mogontiacum, military
headquartersof Upper Germany; but possibly it was at Lugdunum
-if, as we supposedabove,Galba closed the mint, the comparatively
rude fabric of its first issues on reopening need not surprise us.
Vitellius, on being raisedto the purple by'the Rhine armies,started
to strike at Lugdunum, then, when Spain joined him, at Tarraco,
and finally, after Otho's death, at Rome.
The rising of Vespasianin the East was at once markedby the
issue of gold and silver from new mints-Antioch, Ephesus; and
perhaps Alexandria and Byzantium. The armies of Illyricum too,
it seems, issued denarii with Vespasian's portrait. Then, as the
Flavian causetriumphed more and more completely, the portrait of
Vespasiansupersededthat of Vitellius on coins of the mints of Rome,
Lugdunum and Tarraco. An interesting appendix to the coins of
Vespasianis formed by a series of rare coins, connected with Gaul,.
appealingto love of liberty and the martial spirit, but consistently-
omitting any reference to Rome; there can be little doubt that:
it belongs to the Gallic revolt and the short-lived 'imperiumi
Galliarum.'
The brass and copper coinage of the period is less interesting,
though not without its problems. Vindex, as we have seen, counter-
marked coins of Nero with the marks PR and SPQR for the use off
his followers. Galba certainly struck brass at Lugdunum as well as.
at Rome, possibly also at Tarraco. Otho, as is well known, has no,
series of brassat all; the senate did not, as is often asserted,decline
to recognisehim, but it certainly recognisedhim grudginglyand was
probablyglad to find excuses for not hurryingon the issue. Vitellius
struck a few asses at Tarraco. It is difficult to assign any of his
brass to Lugdunum, though we certainlyexpect to find Lugdunum
issues of his. Vespasianprobably struckat Lugdunum, and perhaps
at Tarraco, as well as at Rome in his early years; but it is probable
that later only the Romanissues continued.
With Vespasian the coinage returned into regular channels.
All the temporary mints were soon closed except Antioch, which
coined at intervalsfor severalyearslonger. Lugdunum relapsedinto
its old position as a branch of the Roman mint in or about A.D. 74.
It appearsprobablethat the grip which Nero had taken of the whole-
68 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

coinage was relaxed by his successors. The fact that no brass of

Otho is known suggests that its issue had again become, in something
more than name, a concern of the senate; the restoration of the
privilege would be an act of the constitutional emperor Galba.
This policy was apparently continued by Vespasian; if we were
right in supposing that he stopped the issue of brass with s.c. on
reverse from Lugdunum, we may read his action as an endeavour
to put things back where they had been before Nero made the change.
Brass issued from Lugdunum must have been essentially imperial;
and if such brass bore the distinctive senatorial s.c. it only meant
that the senatorial control was being treated as a pure formality.
Here I must for the time leave my subject; there is something
to be said for this as a stopping point, for here, as in many departments
of state, the reign of Vespasian represents a winding up of the early
empire and a restart on lines suggested by its successes and failures.
To sum up, the system of coinage adopted by Vespasian appears
to be: the main imperial mint at Rome, assisted by a branch at Lug-
dunum, issues gold and silver for the whole empire1: the senatorial
mint similarly issues the token money; it works in close connexion
with the imperial mint, but the authority of the senate is not entirely
lost. The attempt of Nero to oust the senate is, in fact, definitely
abandoned.
Of the detailed organisation of the mints very little is known.
The imperial mint of Lugdunum would be under the general direction
of an imperial procurator, presumably the ' procurator Galliarum
Lugdunensis et Aquitan'cae,' assisted by imperial freedmen and
slaves, and protected by the urban cohort stationed in the city.
The imperial mint of Rome must also have been under procurators,
but the ' procuratura monetae,' as a considerable equestrian office,
is not known before the reign of Trajan. The senatorial mint of
Rome probably continued under the direction of the III viri a. a. a.
f. f.; these magistrates, at any rate, are mentioned in inscriptions as
late as the third century. Nero, we have seen, tried to assert his
authority over all coinage in Rome and probably dreamed of a single
great mint, under exclusive imperial control. This complete fusion
of the two mints was not effected; but, from the very first, the
relations between the two seem to have been close, though, in the
absence of detail, we cannot elaborate the point. 2
In conclusion I wish to draw special attention to a few points of
definite historical interest which have appeared in this article:
(I) The latest numismatic researches absolutely revolutionise
the old ideas about the foundations of the imperial coinage in gold
t It is probable that the mint of Lugdunum in that direction (cp. Hirschfeld, C.I.L. xiii, pars. I,
continued to strike as a branch of the Roman mint fasc. I, p. 251).
right into the third century after Christ. Absolute
proof of this is hard to obtain, but the finding of 2 For the Roman mint, see Hirschfeld, Die
.a coin die of Faustina junior near Lugdunum points kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeanmten,p. I81 ff.
 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE. 69
and silver. Augustus never sought or obtained the special authority
required to issue coins in Rome; still less did he usurp the power
to do so. He chose instead to base his right on that of the ' impera-
tor' of the republic, and provide the world with its coinage from
provincial mints-first in Asia Minor and Spain, later from the one
mint of Lugdunum in Gaul. In this way, while he no doubt offended
some conservatives by monopolising coinage in the precious metals,
he refrained from aggravating the offence by definitely appearing
as successor to the senate in Rome itself.
We have here, in fact, a striking example of the tact and skill with
which Augustus so well knew how to mask a not too popular reform.
We are not surprised to find Tiberius copying Augustus's deliberate
restraint, or, again to find Caligula, with his wild contempt for
constitutional checks, riding roughshod over the sentiment Augustus
had respected, and coining in Rome itself. Claudius, through the
manner of his accession no friend of the senate, had no motive for
reversing a measure, which had its practical advantages, simply to
please the whims of senators. In the early years of Nero, we have
seen, a successful protest by the conservatives was made; coinage
in Rome was not suspended but it was declared to be subject to
senatorial sanction-a fact which disposes us to think that neither
Caligula nor Claudius had troubled to have the right to coin in
Rome conferred on them by definite legislative act. In A.D. 63,.
Nero broke down this last constitutional check, and from then on,
it seems, the emperor struck in gold and silver in Rome, without
finding any to gainsay him.
The principle which Mommsen saw established in 15 B.C. was
at last fully developed and recognised-but not till the best part
of a century later.
(2) The significance of the fact that the emperors left the token
coinage in the hands of the senate has been fully and ably expounded
by Mommsen. Hence the importance of the deliberate attempt
made by Nero to assume complete control of it, in all but name, and
of the policy, which we have attributed to Galba and Vespasian, of
restoring to the senate its real authority. Nero's policy would almost
infallibly have led very rapidly to the ruin of the token currency,
and the mere fact that that ruin did not set in is in itself almost
proof that his policy was rejected by his successors.
(3) The one other point is the importance of the coin in this
period, not only as currency, but as a convenient means of political
advertisement and propaganda. It is too much to suppose with
Laffranchi that this second consideration was decisive in determining
the regular issue of coins. But there is no doubt that every political
event of importance tended to find speedy representation on the
coins and that every new emperor or rebel at once resorted to coinage
to publish the fact of his rising and to give some idea of the programme
70 THE MINTS OF THE EARLY EMPIRE.

he proposed to pursue. This point is very fully illustrated by the

period of the Civil Wars. Where historical material is scanty, then
the coins will often actually supply new facts; even where our
knowledge is as good as it is for the years A.D. 68-69, the coins offer
a most interesting illustration and confirmation of literature--in some
cases, a criterion of its accuracy.
Writing as I have done for Roman students generally, and not
for numismatists only, I have naturally abbreviated as far as possible
the detailed proof of my argument; I have at the same time tried
to indicate where fuller information may be found, if desired. My
main object will have been achieved if I have succeeded in awaking
interest among Roman historians in the latest results of research
in imperial numismatics and in convincing them that Roman coins
have already contributed something and will, if rightly studied,
contribute still more to that new knowledge of the Roman empire
which the last few generations of scholars have been gradually winning
by patient and sympathetic research.

POSTSCRIPT.

The view expressed at the foot of p. 65 with reference to non-

Roman issues of brass marked s.c. needs modification. A number of
such coins, both of Caligula and of Claudius, were certainly not
struck in Rome; on this point I was in error, until the Rev. E. A.
Sydenham drew my attention to the facts. But I still think it
probable that the official issue of brass marked s.c. from Lugdunum
started with Nero. The coins of Caligula and Claudius may well
be what Willers has termed ' Nachpragungen,' unofficial imitations,
of the nature of token money, tolerated by the authorities.