Currency and Control: Mint Workers in the Later Roman Empire

CHAPTER 11 Currency and Control: Mint Workers in the Later Roman Empire Sarah Bond Following their meeting at Milan in 313, Constantine remained in control of the Roman Empire in the west, while Licinius oversaw the east.1 Although they were ostensibly partners, the rivalry between them visibly continued in a number of spheres, including their coinage reforms. In his earlier struggle to be recognized as Augustus in the west, Constantine had advertised his legitimacy by introducing a new gold coin called the solidus. For his part, Licinius had rejected Constantine’s solidus and struggled to sustain the minting of the heavier aureus.2 This ‘valorised’ solidus would eventually emerge as the standard within the empire; however, it could not be fully implemented in the east until after the defeat of Licinius in 324.3 It is within the broader con- text of both emperors’ patent attempts to ensure the supply, authority, and legitimacy of their imperial coinage that we must consider legislation that dic- tated the status of imperial mint workers known as monetarii. It was probably Licinius who sent a rescript dated to 21 July 317 to the Bithynians declaring that the monetarii were to maintain a lowly status into perpetuity; moreover, he barred them from attaining the dignities of the equestrian order.4 The * I would like to thank Richard J.A. Talbert, Michael Peachin, and John Melville-Jones for their helpful remarks in the writing of this chapter. All mistakes are my own. 1 This meeting would result in a new policy of religious toleration labeled the Edict of Milan, as well as the marriage of Constantia, Constantine’s half-sister, to Licinius. See Lact. De mort. pers. 48; Eus. Hist. eccl. 10.5.4. 2 See Abdy (2012: 591–592). It does appear that Licinius went along with reforms to nummi around 318. 3 The introduction of the solidus began in 309. See Depeyrot (2012: 237–240). Although it was of lesser importance than gold to his monetary program, Constantine also reinvigorated the minting of silver coinage, through the siliqua and miliarensis, and in addition reformed billon and base metal coinages. See Vagi 1999: 485–486. 4 The rescript was later attributed to Constantine in the Theodosian Code, but if the date and place are correct, it is probable that it is Licinius’ work. Cod. Theod. 10.20.1 (=Cod. Iust. 11.8.1): Imp. Constantinus a. ad Bithynos. monetarios in sua semper durare condicione oportet nec dignitates eis perfectissimatus tribui vel ducenae vel centenae vel egregiatus. dat. xii kal. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��7 | doi ��.��63/978900433�686_0�� 228 Bond equestrian grades of perfectissimatus and egregiatus in particular carried with them special exemptions from munera, and could thus be used to escape curial duties—an increasingly pervasive problem in the fourth century.5 The rescript indicates that minters were already considered as having a degraded status by 317, but that this status was not altogether debilitating or base. Though barred from the equestrian orders, freeborn Bithynian monetarii perhaps served as curials, suggesting that mint workers could achieve a degree of wealth and civic prominence. An ostensible reason for limiting the dignities available to minters was to tie them to their positions in the imperial mint; however, an additional reason for overseeing them carefully became evident only a few years later, when Constantine cited the imperial monetarii in his pronouncements on counterfeiting. In 321, the emperor alleged that imperial minters were engaged in clan- destine minting of money.6 He attempted to stop the practice through threats directed at the counterfeiters and by proffering incentives for informers. The measures imply that some minters illegally benefitted from their close prox- imity to the imperial stores of gold, silver, and bronze, but the law may have additionally served as a public strategy to restore confidence in the quality of the currency and hence boost consumer confidence.7 Positions in the mint did provide a unique opportunity for theft, coin shaving (wherein an individual debased the coin’s value by filing the metal down), and stealing official dies to be used externally, but the move also unambiguously asserted Constantine’s control over the coinage. Over the course of the fourth century, regulation of the status, prospects, and even conjugal rights of these imperial minters only intensified; however, little modern work has explored the reasons for the changing status of Roman mint workers. This investigation into the legislation concerning monetarii will attempt to show how Roman law was employed to construct imperial legitimacy. It will also posit that the legislation in the fourth aug. Gallicano et Basso conss. (317 iul. 21). The code attributes the rescript to Constantine, though if the date of 317 is correct, it must have been from Licinius in the East, then living in Nicomedia. For Licinius’ authoring the rescript, see Potter (2013: 208); Millar (1983: 90–91). 5 Millar (1983: 91), noted that by 317, perfectissimatus and egregiatus were ‘equestrian grades’ that exempted holders from their curial duties. 6 Cod. Theod. 9.21.2pr. (321). A clarification, which concerned property owners unaware of counterfeiting occurring on their property, was issued in 329 (Cod. Theod. 9.21.4). 7 For instance, after issuances of lead and iron during the Social Wars caused fluctuation in coin values, in 86/85 BC, a praetor named Gratidianus instituted an office for verifying money and exchanged the base currency for new denarii. With acclaim and statues, the populace lauded these monetary measures and their confidence in the coinage returned (Cic., Off. 3.80). See Kay (2014: 250)..

Load more