Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-htx7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-30T10:17:50.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Denarius and Sestertius in Diocletian's Coinage Reform

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

C. H. V. Sutherland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Widely ranging arguments, and often equally wide perplexity, have now for a long time been aroused by the internal monetary problems of Diocletian's coinage reform, as a glance at any recent bibliography will show. Two primary factors connected with the reform are now generally recognized: first, that gold and silver coins of the reformed series were marked with their weight as bullion by numerals which defined them as fractions, respectively, of the gold and silver pound (Ξ = 60 on gold, and XCVI = 96 on silver), and secondly that by A.D. 301, when Diocletian issued his Maximal Edict, the prices for an enormous variety of commodities were quoted in terms of the ‘denarius communis’, of which the Edict rating (which was, it should be emphasized, a maximum rating and by no means necessarily general) gave 50,000 as the price of a pound of gold. What has remained most in dispute is the denominational value of Diocletian's new large copper coin (with laureate head on obverse and Genio Populi Romani reverse, weighing about 10 gm.), now commonly termed the ‘follis’, and its relationship both downwards with the new and smaller radiate-obverse copper piece and upwards with the XCVI silver. Interpretations have varied very widely indeed, and the 10 gm. coin has been equated with as little as 2 ‘denarii communes’ at one end of the scale and as much as 20 or 25 at the other.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 51 , Issue 1-2 , November 1961 , pp. 94 - 97
Copyright
Copyright © C. H. V. Sutherland 1961. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See, for example, the works cited by Mattingly, H., ‘Sestertius and Denarius under Aurelian,’ Num. Chron. 1927, 219 ff.Google Scholar, and ‘The Monetary Systems of the Roman Empire from Diocletian to Theodosius I’, Num. Chron. 1946, III ff.; West, L. C., ‘The Coinage of Diocletian and the Edict on Prices’, in Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in honor of Allan Chester Johnson (ed. Coleman-Norton, P. R., Princeton, 1951), 290 ff.Google Scholar; and Bolin, S., State and Currency in the Roman Empire to 300 A.D. (Stockholm, 1958), 291 ff.Google Scholar

2 Not all the reformed gold and silver was so marked, though uniformity of weight throughout shows that it might have been, if required: see K. Pink's two valuable articles in Num. Zeitschr. 1930, 9 ff., and 1931, 1 ff.

3 cf. West, o.c. 290.

4 Acceptance of this name, which properly belongs to a later period, is no more than a reflection of the uncertainty about its denominational value. It would be well to dissociate it altogether from Diocletian's new coinage.

5 H. Mattingly, Roman Coins 2, 218.

6 H. Mattingly, Roman Coins 1, 226.

7 Jones, A. H. M., ‘Inflation under the Roman Empire,’ Economic History Review 1953, 293 ff., esp. 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Jones, o.c.

9 Hilliger, B., ‘Der Pseudoantoninianus Aurelians und die Münzreform Diocletians,’ Deutsches Jahrb. f. Numismatik 1939, 102 ff.Google Scholar The theories offered by Hilliger would presuppose an understanding of weight-systems and metal-ratios, on the part of the subjects of the Roman empire at large, as acute and learned as that which he himself displayed; and it is beyond belief that this was possible.

10 See, e.g. Jones, o.c., 306.

11 Roman Imperial Coinage (ed. H. Mattingly, E. A. Sydenham) V, pt. 1.

12 Thus Trajan Decius issued his well-known double sestertius, with radiate head, as his heaviest aes unit (Rom. Imp. Coinage IV, pt. 3, 135 f.).

13 Id., Introd., XXII.

14 Num. Chron. 1927, 223 ff. (though in an inverted and unacceptable form).

15 o.c. (n. 17) 297 f.

16 Imperial monetary tradition from early times had made a radiate head indicate a double denomination (cf. the early imperial dupondius, Trajan Decius'double sestertius, and even ‘double multiples’ in gold in the early fourth century). It has often been held that Caracalla's new radiate piece = 1 ½ denarii (so Hilliger, o.c. (n. 9) 103); but this view is not acceptable in the light of a contrary tradition.

16 Hammer, J., ‘Der Feingehalt der griechischen und römischen Münzen,’ Zeitschr. f. Num. 1908, 102 f.Google Scholar: his figures (which urgently need amplification) suggest a fineness of over 50 per cent.

18 Hammer, o.c. 105 f.

19 Fineness was up to 5 per cent; cf. Hammer, o.c. 107; Hilliger, o.c. 104.

20 Thus the early Republican denarius of 10 asses was soon tariffed at 16 (its mark changing from X to x̶).

21 Whether public unrest is veiled behind the shadowy tradition of trouble at the mint of Rome under Aurelian it is impossible to say: cf. Mattingly, , Num. Chron. 1927, 219.Google Scholar

22 See below for the views of Brambach and Bolin.

23 The dotted form occurs at Siscia and Serdica.

24 As Hilliger, o.c. 105 f.

25 cf. Mattingly, , Num. Chron. 1927, 221Google Scholar, in the course of a valuable passage on the possible interpretations of the equation formula.

26 This explanation of the XXI coinage, ‘1 piece = 20 sestertii ( = 5 denarii)’ was put forward by W. Kubitschek in Jahresberichte 1894–5, 1895–6, des k. k. Staatsgymnasiums im VIII. Bezirke Wiens, 86 ff., and by Mickwitz, G., Geld und Wirtschaft im röm. Reich des vierten Jhdts. n. Chr. (Helsingfors, 1931), 62 ff.Google Scholar; see also Jones, o.c. 297 f.

27 cf. early Republican aes marked in unciae, and silver in asses, besides Neronian dupondii marked in asses.

28 There are no longer 240 silver pennies to the English lb. of sterling silver, though 240 pennies are still reckoned to the £.

29 Hammer, o.c. (note 17), 137. I hope to be able to publish in due course the analysis of many more examples.

30 Hammer, o.c. 137.

31 o.c. (note 1), 302 ff.

32 ‘Beiträge zur röm. Münzkunde,’ Frankfurter Münzzeitung 1920, 204 f., rejected by Mattingly, Num. Chron. 1927, 221, on grounds that probably need further investigation: see n. 29 above.

33 This is generally accepted by most scholars, including Hilliger, o.c. (note 9), 112.

34 See n. 26 above.

35 Hammer in 1908 (o.c. 137) was already calling them ‘fivers’ and ‘twos’.

36 Bolin, o.c. 302. The arguments put forward by West, o.c. (note 1), 294 ff., on the basis of the actual number of coins necessary to pay prices mentioned in the Edict are not wholly convincing: the reform was a reform of values, and not of social usage.

37 Voetter, O., Die Münzen der röm. Kaiser, Kaiserirnnen und Caesaren von Diocletianus bis Romulus: Katalog Paul Gerin (Vienna, 1921), 133Google Scholar (Herculius), no. 10 and (Constantius), no. 4; 134, (Galerius) no. 4. The two first of these coins are in the Vienna collection.

38 C. H. Roberts and J. G. Milne, ‘ΙΤΑΛΙΚΟΝ ΝΟΜΙΣΜΑ’, Trans. Intern. Num. Congress 1936, 246 ff. The drop in value from 5 to 2 denarii is near enough to the εἰς ἥμισυ νούμμου καταβιβασθῆναι of the papyrus, the phrase meaning (see Roberts and Milne, o.c. 249, n. 1) ‘to the half of the value in the case of each coin’.

39 Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘Diocletian's Reform of the Coinage: a Chronological Note,’ JRS 1955, 116 ff.Google Scholar

40 See, e.g. Voetter, o.c. (n. 37) 59 ff., 214 ff. 276 ff., 316 ff., 359 ff.

41 cf. Kent, J. P. C., ‘The Pattern of Bronze Coinage under Constantine I,’ Num. Chron. 1957, 16 ff.Google Scholar

42 Kent, o.c. 42 f., 66 ff.

43 Certain other problems of Diocletianic date remain. The relationship of the new silver coin to both gold and aes is difficult (cf. Bolin, o.c. 294 ff., 302 ff.). So too is the attribution of denarial values to what have until now been called halves, quarters and eighths of the follis (see, e.g. Strauss, P., ‘Les monnaies divisionnaires de Trèves,’ Rev. Num. 1954, 33 ff.)Google Scholar, given up substantially to ‘vota’ types. Their metal-composition has not yet been analysed, but if they are all devoid of silver the ‘halves’ may be pieces of 2 denarii, the ‘quarters’ of 1 (a physical expression of the ‘denarius communis’), and the ‘eighths’ of ½ denarius.