Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:51:37.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Letters SC on Augustan Aes Coinage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Aase Bay
Aase Bay
Affiliation:
University of Odense, Denmark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1962 the late Professor Kraft put forward a new interpretation of the letters SC on the aes coinage of the principate, claiming thereby to remove the difficulties that sprang from the traditional interpretation of the formula. In brief, his theory was that the letters S(enatus) C(onsulto) did not refer to a senatorial decision authorizing the coinage (meaning ‘geprägt auf Senatsbeschluss’), as had been generally assumed as a matter of course; rather, the reference was to the type-content of the coinage: to the decision by which the senate had voted Augustus the honours depicted on the coinage itself (the oak-wreath of 27 B.C.). Although the late H. Mattingly reacted to this theory with scepticism, it was supported by C. H. V. Sutherland, who adduced in its favour further arguments from Augustan issues in the provinces. There discussion has stopped. However, there are reasons for not leaving the problem at this stage, as the solution of Kraft can hardly be the right one; instead, it should be possible to suggest another one harmonizing better with the evidence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 62 , November 1972 , pp. 111 - 122
Copyright
Copyright ©Aase Bay 1972. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kraft, K., ‘S(enatus) C(onsulto)’, JNG XII, 1962, 7–49Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Kraft, ‘SC’, 1962.

2 Review of Kraft, ‘SC’, 1962, in NC 1963, 255–6.

3 ‘The symbolism of the early aes coinages under Augustus’, RN VI, ser. VII, 1965 [1966], 94–109.

4 Kraft, K., ‘Zur Datierung der römischen Münzmeisterprägung unter Augustus’, Mainzer Zeitschrift 46/47, 1951/1952, 28–35Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Kraft, ‘Datierung’, 1951/52); ‘Q. Aelius L.f. Lamia, Münzmeister und Freund des Horaz’, JNG XVI, 1966, 23–31 (hereafter cited as Kraft, ‘Aelius Lamia’, 1966); Grant, M., The six main Aes coinages of Augustus, 1953 (hereafter cited as Grant, SMACA, 1953), 96–111Google Scholar; Robertson, A. S., Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet I, 1962 (hereafter cited as Robertson, HCC, 1962), p. XXXIV with note.Google Scholar

5 Above, n. 4, and Robertson, , HCC, 1962, p. XXXIIIGoogle Scholar with notes.

6 Kraft, ‘SC’, 1962, 7–23; cf. Mattingly, , NC 1963, 255–6.Google Scholar

7 ‘Bei der Münzprägung dieser Epoche [i.e. the principate] tritt das dyarchische System deutlicher als irgendwo sonst zu Tage’, Röm. Staatsrecht III, 1146; cf. II, 1025–8. The theory of a division is, however, older than Mommsen; it was also subjected to criticism very early. See Guarini, R., ‘Osservazioni intorno ai Triumviri Monetali’, Miscellanea VI, Napoli 1814Google Scholar, who argues for unity of coinage under the control of the emperor, and F. M. Avellino, ‘Osservazioni sulla sigla S.C.’, ibid., who explains SC as a mere formality, the reason for which was to furnish a mark that might distinguish Roman aes from local issues in the provinces.

8 H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage I, 3; H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum I, pp. XVI; XXVI–XXVII; LXXV; cf. vol. v, p. XXII; NC 1963, 255; Roman Coins 2, 102, 129, cf. 24; C. H. V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy, 195, 47, 183–4; NC 1952, 144.

The difficulty of explaining the combination of division of control of the coinage with what is otherwise known of the character of the principate is clearly mirrored in most formulations of an explanation (see for instance Göbl, R., Einführung in die Münzkunde der römischen Kaiserzeit, 1957, 12Google Scholar, and the collection of quotations in Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, 20–21Google Scholar, cf. 38).

9 ‘Da nur die Aes-Münze, nicht aber die Edelmetallprägungen in Gold und Silber die Buchstaben S.C. aufweisen, ergab sich zwangsläufig die Folgerung, dass nur die Aes-Münzen auf Grund eines Senatsbeschlusses, die Gold- und Silbermünzen jedoch aus kaiserlicher Machtvollkommenheit ohne Befragung des Senate hergestellt wurden’, Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, 2Google Scholar; cf. 12 et passim.

10 Aurei of P. Petronius Turpilianus, L. Aquilius Florus, and M. Durmius (about 19–18 B.C.?), BMCEmp, Aug. nos. 5; 6; 35; 51; cf. 22; 45; 60; RIC, Aug. nos. 97; 109; 121; 126; cf. 116; 124; 135.

11 Cf. below p. 116.

12 P. Licinius Stolo, of 17 B.C., BMCEmp, Aug. nos. 74–6; cf. L. Vinicius, L. Mescinius Rufus and C. Antistius Vetus in 16 B.C., BMCEmp, Aug. nos. 79–81; 87–9; 95–7; RIC, Aug. nos. 136–7; 147; 152–4; 156–8.

13 Cf. below, p. 117.

14 Grant, M., From Imperium to Auctoritas (cited as Grant, FITA, 1946), 92 ff.Google Scholar; 424 ff., especially 443–5; SMACA, 1953, 42 ff. Cf. the remarks of Robertson, HCC, 1962, p. LIII; Liberanome, M., ‘Sul principato di Augusto’, Atene e Roma 1959, 129–39Google Scholar; Salmon, E. T., ‘The Evolution of Augustus' Principate’, Historia 1956, 456–78.Google Scholar

15 This is the commonly, but, it should be added, not universally accepted view: Heichelheim, F. M., An Ancient Economic History III, 1970 (cited as Heichelheim, Ec. Hist.), 15–16, 215Google Scholar; Wirtschaftliche Schwankungen der Zeit von Alexander bis Augustus, 1930, 43.

16 Grant, FITA, 1946, 3–87; Roman Imperial Money, 1954 (cited as Grant, RIM, 1954), 17–18; BMCEmp I, pp. XLV–XLVII; Sydenham, E. A., The Coinage of the Roman Republic, 1952 (cited as CRR), pp. XXX, XXXIV–XXXIXGoogle Scholar; M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, 1973 (cited as RRC), Ch. 2.

17 The only difference of importance was that the aureus was standardized at 42 to the pound; in the previous period it had been at 40 to the pound, BMCEmp I, p. XLIV.

18 The alloy contained lower proportions of zinc than most varieties of modern brass. It was not of fixed composition; gradually the proportion of zinc decreased, whereas tin and lead, which to begin with had been mere impurities, became important components, E. R. Caley, Orichalcum and Related Ancient Alloys (Numismatic Notes and Monographs 151, 1964: cited as Caley, Orichalcum, 1964), p. I; Grant, , FITA, 1946, 85Google Scholar; 87; SMACA, 1953, 5.

19 BMCEmp I, pp. XLIV–LVII. The semis, triens, and sextans which had been struck at the mint of Rome before the suspension of its aes coinage were not revived.

20 These are the theoretical weights as they may be assessed, not average ones, BMCEmp I, pp. XLV ff.

21 C. Clovius, Italy, 45 B.C. (RRC, no. 476; Grant, , FITA, 1946, 7–11Google Scholar); M. Acilius, Thessalonica, 45–44 B.C.(?) (Grant, 13–19); Q. Oppius, Syria, date uncertain (RRC, no. 550; Grant, 61–4); Caley, , Orichalcum, 1964, 8–10.Google Scholar P. Sulpicius Rufus, Pontus and Bithynia, 45 B.C., who is mentioned by Grant (1–13) as a possibility, and Sosius, Zacynthus, 32 B.C., who is included by Grant (39–41), lack decisive evidence based on chemical or spectographic tests, Caley, p. 9, cf. Grant, 85–90.

22 Grant, FITA, 1946, 85–90; Caley, Orichalcum, 1964, 92 ff.; 13 ff.; O. Davies, Roman Mines in Europe, 61; Pliny, n.h. XXXIV, 2.

23 Regling, s.v. ‘Münzwesen’, RE XVI (1933), col. 478.

24 The basis of which is the same pound as formed the basis of the Republican asses.

25 See below, pp. 115–6.

26 BMCEmp I, Aug. nos. 561–4; p. CXVIII, n. 3.

27 BMCEmp I, p. LVI, gives from 3 specimens the average weight of 2·75 grams. The reason why the Roman quadrantes were made more heavy may be the one suggested by H. Mattingly, ‘the Government probably did not grudge a little extra metal to this denomination which was not issued on the grand scale’, BMCEmp I, p. XLIX.

28 Bogaert, R., Banques et banquiers dans les cités grecques, 1968, 316.Google Scholar

29 Both the absolute and a relative dating of the aes coinage is extremely difficult, among other reasons because of the repetitive character of the types. The moneyers provide an essential criterion for dating. Here I have followed the arrangement of Kraft, who bases his results on the relative and absolute dating of the consulates of the moneyers, combined with data deriving from the evidence of coin finds, see Kraft, ‘Datierung’, 1951/52; ‘C. Aelius Lamia’, 1966; ‘SC, 1962, 26. This, of course, is a method which contains many possibilities of error, and the problem is not yet solved. See Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coin Hoards, 1969, Table XVIII and p. 42;Google ScholarCallu, J.-P. and Panvini Rosati, F., ‘Le dépôt monétaire du Pozzarello (Bolsena)’, MEFR 1964, 51–91, esp. 65–9Google Scholar. What is sure is that P. Licinius Stolo and M. Sanquinius struck in c. 17 B.C. (their issues in gold and silver contain references to the secular games of 17 B.C.), and a re-opening of the mint c. 19–18 B.C. (cf. n. 4 above) is probable.

30 BMCEmp Aug. nos. 134, 139, 147. 157, 165, 171–2, 175, 178, 181–3, 191–2, 195–6; 198; RIC Aug. nos. 67, 70, 73, 76, 79, 82, 85, 87–9, 138, 143, 145.

31 BMCEmp Aug. nos. 135–6; 141–2, 150–2, 150 bis, 158–60, 166–8, 173, 176–7, 179–80, 184–90, 193–4, 197, 199 RIC Aug. nos. 68, 71, 75, 77, 80, 83, 86, 90–4, 139–40, 144, 146.

32 BMCEmp Aug. nos. 137–8, 143–6, 153–6, 161–4, 169–70, 174; RIC Aug. nos. 69, 72, 74, 78, 81, 84.

33 BMCEmp I, p. 28; RIC Aug. nos. 64–6.

34 BMCEmp I, p. 28; RIC Aug. no. 63.

35 BMCEmp I, pp. 41–6; RIC Aug. nos. 186–97.

36 BMCEmp Aug. nos 271–6; RIC Aug. nos. 219–20.

37 BMCEmp Aug. nos. 200–8; RIC Aug. nos. 180–5.

38 BMCEmp Aug. nos. 243–70; RIC Aug. nos. 198–218.

39 Kraft, ‘Datierung’, 1951–52, 28–9; Crawford, RRCH, 1969, Table XVIII. Against this Callu-Rosati, ‘Dépotô, 1964, 65–7, like Mattingly, BMCEmp I, p. xcv, prefer to consider the asses of Piso as the first issue of asses. However these coins are to be explained, they are in any case a short-lived phenomenon, representing an exceptional situation. The rest of the issues of the three moneyers (including many asses, cf. Callu-Rosati, ‘Dépôt’, 1964, 76–7) are perfectly normal.

40 ‘SC’, 1962, 28–9. Kraft certainly puts forward the not very convincing opinion that the Augustus head of the as can be connected with the symbolism of the oak-wreath. ‘Es ist das Bild des Empfängers der Ehrung und gehört eigentlich zur vollen Darstellung des Themas’ (p. 28). Thus, the connection can ‘immerhin bedingt erkannt werden’ (p. 29).

41 For the sake of completeness, a few words should be added about the period after the principate of Augustus. With the introduction of the quadrans in c. 9 B.C. the letters SC could still have functioned as a guarantee that the coin was legal tender, or they might be mere convention. Obviously the guarantee must have been felt more and more superfluous as time went on, and it is therefore not surprising that it tends to disappear. (This is perhaps detectable in the quadrans, where SC is placed rather freely). The imperial propaganda machine simply took over the large, and for its purposes very suitable, area of the sestertius (first instance: Gaius, BMCEmp Cal. nos. 33–5. pl. 28, 3; see the list in Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, p. 33Google Scholar), the first step in this direction being the elimination of the names and titles of the moneyers towards the end of the reign of Augustus. Furthermore, there was probably a change in the conception of the guarantee behind the coinage: in the period after Augustus the portrait of the emperor is extended to denominations of aes other than the as, and this portrait, in accordance with constitutional development, may have been taken to refer to the guarantee behind the coin. (Cf. the ‘coin of the emperor’ in Mark xii, 13–17.) Also the interpretation of SC may in fact have undergone a development, cf. below, p. 121–2 with note.

42 Mattingly, H., ‘Some New Studies of the Roman Republican Coinage’, PBA 39, 1953, 271–7Google Scholar; ‘Roman Numismatics: Miscellaneous Notes’, PBA 43. 1957, 188–9; ‘Roman Numismatics: Further Miscellaneous Notes’, PBA 46, 1960, 255–66; ‘Various Numismatic Notes’, PBA 49, 1963, 329–43; Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, 23–4Google Scholar; Crawford, RRC, ch. 4. Mattingly, in his list in PBA 39, 1953, 274, also includes a tribunus aerarius (RRC, no. 404) and praefectus classis et orae maritimae (RRC, no. 311). However, in spite of RRC, no. 394 (TA on denarius of C. Postumius, c. 74 B.C.), the TA of RRC, no. 404 will probably have been an abbreviation for Titus Tatius, supposed ancestor of the moneyer T. Vettius Sabinus (cf. RRC, no. 344). As to the praefectus classis et orae maritimae, SC probably refers to his title, not to the actual coining (see below).

43 See bibliography in previous note.

44 Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, 25Google Scholar chooses exclusively one possibility (the more unusual one).

45 BMCEmp Aug. nos. 1–4, p. 3 n., nos. 38–9, 55, 90–4; cf. 77–84, 86–88, 90, p. 19; RIC Aug. nos. 22, 95–6, 108, 159–60.

46 Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, 24.Google Scholar

47 It follows that any particular interpretation of EX SC or SC must depend on what the extraordinary circumstances were about any given coin. Thus we cannot decide a priori whether SC means that the monetary magistrate was coining by a SC, or if it means that the coin was struck by SC.

48 This might also explain why the tresviri are called only IIIVIR on coins of gold and silver, whereas on aes they are invariably styled carefully with the full title, stressing their competence in all the coinage metals. Indeed, P. Licinius Stolo and M. Sanquinius, who are the only moneyers to be named on AV, AR and AE, style themselves IIIVIR on precious metals, but IIIVIR AAAFF on aes, BMCEmp. Aug. nos. 69 ff., cf. 191 ff.

49 Th. Mommsen, Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens 364.

50 Crawford, RRC ch. 5, section 1.

51 This is the interpretation of Gaebler, H., ‘Zur Münzkunde Makedoniens’, Zeitschrift f. Numismatik 23, 1902, 174, n. 5.Google Scholar against Mommsen's tentative suggestion in Münzwesen 582, n. 354, ‘Lege Papiria De Aere Publico’, which is the more commonly accepted one (Sydenham, CRR, p. 104; H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum I, 282, n. 1).

52 See, for instance, RRC, no. 339.

53 Mommsen, Münzwesen 377–8 and 389; RStR II, 639–42.

54 Grant, FITA 91 ff., cf. I; SMACA 1953, XI–XIII; Heichelheim, Econ. Hist. III, 212 ff. In what follows the arrangement of SMACA, 1953, is used.

55 Antioch is commonly assumed, but as yet not proved, SMACA, 1953, 125, with references. The certain point in the dating of the issue is the terminus post quern furnished by the title of tribunicia potestas. Grant, (SMACA, 1953, 123 ff.Google Scholar) by employment of stylistic criteria (similarity of portraits) arrives at a date about 14 B.C. or shortly afterwards. This very uncertain method might in fact lead to a date of 20–19 B.C. (portraits in SMACA, 1953, dl. II, 2 and 4). The quite exceptional forerunner of the series, the bilingual issue, cannot be precisely pated (FITA, 1946, 98; SMACA, 1953, 123, 126; Wruck, W., Die syrische Provinzialprägung von Augustus bis Trajan, 1931, no. 13Google Scholar).

56 Series 3 of SMACA, 1953, 7–8.

57 Apart from the Roman series apparently only Series 4 (Asia Minor) of SMACA has the new coins of orichalcum and copper. The rest of the series is in the usual bronze alloy, SMACA, 1953, 1–13.

58 The Excavations at Dura-Europos. Final Report VI: The Coins, by Bellinger, A. R., 1949, 202, 196 ff.Google Scholar

59 Already discussed in Grant, FITA 92 ff.; 424 ff.

60 E.g. the right to convene the senate at any time, the rights relating to his procedural powers in senatorial debates (I am here not speaking of political reality), the right to annul decisions, and, after A.D. 13, the possibility of passing senatusconsulta in his consilium without even the collaboration of the senate. Moore, O'Brien, s.v. ‘Senatus’, RE Suppl. VI (1935). coll. 771–3Google Scholar; Crook, J., Consilium principis, 1955, 8–19Google Scholar; Arangio-Ruiz, V., ‘La legislazione’ (in Augustus, Studi in occasione del bimillenario augusteo, 1938) 123–6Google Scholar; De Martino, F., Storia della Costituzione Romana IV, 1962, 486 ff., 500–3.Google Scholar

61 Material in S. Riccobono, Acta Divi Augusti, 1945; Th. A. Abele, Der Senat unter Augustus, 1907; O'Brien Moore, op. cit. col. 809; P. Sattler, Augustus und der Senat, 1960. The very existence of the probouleutic committee shows the wish of Augustus to make the senate work, but under his control.

62 Or both; but not by edict, which is an order and statement of intention by a magistrate, and which Augustus did not use in Rome. Arangio-Ruiz, ‘Legislazione’, 127.

63 Cf. Pomponius, Dig. I, 2, 2, 9: ‘Deinde quia difficile plebs convenire coepit, populus certe multo difficilius in tanta turba hominum, necessitas ipsa curam rei publicae ad senatum deduxit’.

64 Cf. the later development, wherein the ‘oratio principis’ is quoted as source of law instead of the subsequent SC.

65 Cf. contra Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, 20.Google Scholar

66 Chilver, G. E. F., ‘Augustus and the Roman Constitution, 1939–50’, Historia 1950, 408–35Google Scholar; Salmon, ‘Evolution’, 1956; Liberanome, ‘Principato’, 1959; Wickert, L., s.v. ‘Princeps’, RE XXII (1954), coll. 2068–71.Google Scholar

67 Polyb. VI, 13 I; cf. De Martino, Costituzione II, 175 ff.

68 Veil. II, 39, cf. Frank, T., ‘On Augustus and the aerarium’, JRS 1933, 133–48.Google Scholar

69 This was, especially for the conservative Augustus, a remarkably radical infringement of the powers of the Republican magistrature. As late as A.D. 44 this conflict is mirrored in Claudius' attempt to re-establish the quaestors at the head of the aerarium, Tac., Ann. XIII, 29; Dio LX, 24, I; Suet., Claud. 24.

70 ‘Praefectus’ is the ‘Titel von Amtsträgern und Offizieren in einem Vorgesetztenverhältnis zu anderen, die als Gehilfe und Mandatare von Magistraten und vor allem nachher vom Kaiser eingesetzt wurden. Ihre Stellung beruhte, ohne eigentlich amtlich im Rechtssinn zu sein, auf dem freien Willen eines Mandaten, der einen p. mit einem bestimmten Mandat versehen hatte’, Ensslin, W., s.v. ‘Praefectus’, RE XXII (1954)Google Scholar, col. 1257. Sachers, Cp., s.v. ‘Praefectura’, ‘Praefectus’, RE XXII (1954), col. 2340.Google Scholar

71 Seen in this light, the reform of 23 represents a loosening of Augustus' too conspicuous legal control of the aerarium, just as the constitutional reforms of the same time and the resignation of the consulate meant abandoning an arrangement which had become too conspicuous. For the changes of 28 and 23 to the aerarium: Dio LIII, 2; 32, 2; Tac. Ann. XIII, 29; Suet., Aug. 36.

72 E.g. Tac., Ann. I, 76; II, 47; IV, 13; Suet., Tib. 30; Tac., Ann. XII, 61; 62; XIII, 56; XV, 18.

73 Tac., Ann. IV, 13: ‘factaque auctore eo [Tiberius] senatus consulta, ut civitati Cibyraticae apud Asiam, Aeginensi apud Achaiam motu terrae labefactis, subveniretur remissione tributi in triennium’. Achaia had been taken over by the princeps in A.D. 15 (Tac., Ann. I, 76).

74 The best surviving illustration of this intricacy in Augustus' use of the senate is perhaps the SC Calvisianum of 4 B.C.: a SC valid for all provinces, prepared in the consilium of Augustus, passed in the senate in Augustus' presence and with his signature, and by decision of Augustus sent to the provinces, accompanied by his edict. See F. de Visscher, Les édits d'Auguste découverts à Cyrène, 1940.

This section deals only summarily with a complicated subject; see also Brunt, P. A., ‘The Fiscus and its Development’, JRS 1966, 75–91Google Scholar; Millar, F., ‘The aerarium and its officials under the Empire’, JRS 1964, 33–40Google Scholar; ‘The Fiscus in the first two centuries’, JRS 1963, 29–42, with references to the literature on the subject.

75 Mattingly, H., ‘Origins of the Imperial Coinage in Republican Times’, NC 1919, 228Google Scholar; 230; Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘The senatorial gold and silver coinage of 16 B.C.’, NC 1943, 40 ff.Google Scholar; BMCEmp I, pp. XV–XVI; RIC I, p. 3.

76 Dio LX, 22, 3.

77 Thus Kraft, , ‘SC’, 1962, 10Google Scholar, who also draws attention to the fact that Messalina, not the senate, disposed of the melted metal.

78 Claudius, aurei and denarii, BMCEmp Claud. nos. 3–4, 16–19, 84–8; RIC Claud, nos. 19–21, 98–9; Nero, aurei and denarii, BMCEmp Nero nos. 1–10, 12–51; RIC Nero nos. I, 9–10, 18–36.

79 Above, pp. 116–7.

80 This is perhaps most strikingly demonstrated by the use of the formulas on aes, where EX SC is used with reference to type-content: BMCEmp Claud. nos. 115–20; 185–6; RIC Claud, nos. 60–1, in fact a commemoration of the presentation of the civic oak-wreath to Claudius, cf. the objections against Kraft, (‘SC’, 1962, 33 ff.)Google Scholar on this point in Mattingly, , NC, 1963, 256.Google Scholar Kraft's attack on the possibility of two distinct meanings for SC and EX SC is based on a failure to discriminate coins of the time of Augustus from coins of a later date (o.c, p. 37).