Claudius and the Senatorial Mint

C. H. V. Sutherland

The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 31. (1941), pp. 70-72.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281941%2931%3C70%3ACATSM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

The Journal of Roman Studies is currently published by Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained
prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in
the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/journals/sprs.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic
journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,
and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take
advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www.jstor.org
Fri Sep 14 12:26:33 2007
 CLAUDIUS AND T H E SENATORIAL MINT
By C. H. V. SUTHERLAND

T h e object of this note is to call attention to a passage in

Professor A. Momigliano's Claudius : the Emperor and his Achieve-
ment (Oxford, 1934), which appears to stand in need of correction.
This duty is all the more necessary because the book-a model of
scholarly and concise writing, not easily to be emulated-has
rightly won so highly authoritative and influential a place among
students. T h e passage in question is to be found in p. 40 f.,
as follows : ' In his monetary policy Claudius showed throughout
a desire to recognise in full measure the rights of the Senate.
Augustus, after making various experiments, ended by restricting
the Senate's share of minting to the copper coinage for Italy, and
kept the coinage of gold and silver and the remainder of the copper
coinage in his own hands, with the principal mint at Lyons.
Tiberius continued Augustus' policy in the main, though he tended
to restrict provincial minting. I n Gaius' reign this tendency was
carried to its logical extreme ; a fundamental change was made,
the Lyons mint being transferred to Rome. T h e pretence that
it was meant only for the coinage of the provinces was finally
abandoned ; and soon afterwards nearly all the other western
provincial mints were closed even for the coinage of copper.
Now one feature that differentiates Claudius' reign from that
which preceded it is the reappearance in large quantities of a
provincial copper coinage, easily recognisable by its coarse manu-
facture ; and this coinage always bears the mark of the Senate
(S.C.).,
There is, here, some misconception of the nature and function
of aes coinage in the provinces. I t is certainly true that the Augustan
monetary scheme ultimately restricted the activity of the senatorial
mint to the supplying of aes to Rome and Italy. (No one, however,
will suppose that senatorial aes of Augustus' reign never travelled
outside Italy, for it frequently did so.) I t is, moreover, agreed
that the Augustan scheme was mainly continued by Tiberius.
(But it is better to add, in correction of Momigliano, that Tiberius
discouraged the further striking of aes by individual communities-
Momigliano's ' other western provincial mints '-in imperial
provinces : such aes, struck for instance in Spain and Gaul, had
been allowed or even encouraged by Augustus, and, in the absence
of all contrary evidence, cannot be thought to have owed anything
to senatorial initiative, for the Princeps never abrogated his
unwritten right of aes coinage in imperial provinces.) Gaius, as
 CLAUDIUS AND THE SENATORIAL MINT 7I
is generally recognised, moved the mint for imperial gold and
silver from Lyons to Rome ; and he appears to have suppressed
finally the non-senatorial aes of Spain and Gaul, etc., defined
above. T h e following three classes of coinage may therefore be
observed :-
I. Imperial gold and silver, struck at Lyons (from c. IS B.c.)
under Augustus and Tiberius, and at Rome under Gaius.
11. Senatorial aes, struck at Rome under Augustus, Tiberius,
and Gaius : intended primarily for circulation in Rome and Italy,
this aes not infrequently travelled further.
111. Aes struck by imperial authority in imperial provinces
(mainly in Spain and Gaul) by individual communities : diminished
under Tiberius, it ceased with Gaius.
Momigliano, by mistakenly regarding class I11 as senatoria,
in origin (a view for which there appears to be no evidence)
confuses classes I1 and I11 when he implies an increasing restriction
under Augustus, Tiberius, and Gaius, of the senatorial powers of
aes coinage. Moreover, in seeking to show a Claudian relaxation
in this matter, he includes under I1 a class of coinage which, when
closely studied, would seem in fact to belong rather to 111.
This class consists of the Claudian aes coins which, as
Momigliano remarks, may be easily distinguished by their coarse
fabric : they ' always bear the mark of the Senate (S.C.) '. The
latter fact is natural enough for, as critical examination of their
fabric and occurrence shows, these coins are merely copies, based
on the normal senatorial coinage of the time, which was of course
invariably marked S.C. It is not here necessary to discuss in full
the origin and incidence of these copies : they have long been
recognised and have recently received some sort of clas~ification.~
Many have been found in the Rhineland, and in Gaul and Spain.
Romano-British sites have produced great numbers of them :
at the particularly significant site of Camulodunum they form a
very large proportion of the Claudian ~ o i n a g e . ~I n brief, they
show that the senatorial aes struck under Claudius at Rome
spread over' the provinces-being diffused by the army and other
means-to take the place of the defunct class I11 above,4 but that,
being insufficient, it was widely imitated, with varying degrees of
success governed by varying factors. This imitation can hardly
C f . C . Roach S m i t h i n Num. Chron. subject o f discussion i n t h e forthcoming
1841, 147 ; and H . Cohen, Description Report o f t h e Research Committee o f t h e
historique des monnaies frapp6es sous l'empire Society o f Antiquaries.
romain i ( I S S O ) ,257. It is worth noting that certain , pre-
C f . C . H. V . Sutherland, Romano- Claudian coins (such as t h e ' Agrippa and
British Imitations of Bronze Coins ofClaudius I Provident(ia) ' asses) were fairly widely
(American Numismatic Society's Notes and copied i n t h e western provinces : Gaius'
Monographs, no. 65, N e w Y o r k , 1935). closing o f provincial m i n t s began t o cause a
T h e s e Colchester copies will b e t h e shortage o f aes i n Gaius' o w n t i m e .
 C. H. V. SUTHERLAND

have had anything to do with the Senate : it was difficult, in any

case, to prevent the copies being made, and at Camulodunum-
to take a pertinent example-it was for the imperial authorities,
rather than for any senatorial agent, to allow or refuse their
circulation. In fact, it may safely be assumed that the imperial
authorities, far from conniving at them, instigated their manufacture
(as at Colchester), to provide the small change which increasing
business demanded : the example, once set in the towns, would
spread to the lesser communities. The Senate, however, would
have no hand in the business ; and the existence of these coins
is no evidence for Claudius' generosity to the Senate. T o the
contrary : if senatorial coinage was officially copied at the bidding
of military authorities, we find the Senate not courted, but
technically flouted.
Finally, it is not true to say that, ' while Gaius constantly
had his effigy placed upon senatorial coins, no imperial effigy
appears on them in the time of Claudius ' (Momigliano, o.c., 41).
Claudius' portrait appears regularly on the sestertii, dupondii, and
asses of his reign, excepting the commemorative issues which he
struck in honour of Nero Claudius Drusus, Antonia, Germanicus,
and Agrippina. Herein there is an exact parallel with the coinage
of Gaius. Very much still remains to be learned of the status of
the senatorial mint, and of its relation to the imperial mint, in the
Julio-Claudian period. But it can be said with certainty that
Claudius' monetary policy showed no deliberate effort to conciliate
the Senate, or emphasise its rights. Was it not Claudius, after all,
whose imperial gold and silver coins sedulously repeated, over a
number of years, those types which so harshly recalled senatorial
discomfiture in A.D. 41-Imper. Recept. (soldier by the praetorian
camp) and Praetor. Recept. (Claudius shaking hands with a
praetorian) ?