Quattuorviri Monetales

Suetonius describes how Julius Caesar broke all norms with his return to Rome in 46 BC, after defeating the Pompeians in North Africa. He held multiple triumphs (April 46 BCE), including one for the defeat of fellow Romans.

"With the same disregard for established custom, he [Julius Caesar] continued magistrates in office for many years beyond their legal terms. He conferred consular rank on ten men of praetorian status. He admitted a large number into the Senate—some recently enfranchised citizens, and even some of [foreign] royal descent, among them, semi-barbarians from Transalpine Gaul, who for the first time were granted access to senatorial honors.

He entrusted the management of the mint and the public revenues to his own freedmen and even slaves. To command the legions he left behind in Alexandria, he appointed some of his personal attendants—including one of his own former catamites [young men kept for personal pleasure], the son of his freedman Rufinus."
-Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 76.3

Not only did Caesar put his loyalists in control of the mint, but also Caesar expanded the collegium of tresviri monetales (3-men for the minting of money) to one of quattuorviri (4-men). This is attested on this coin of L. Faminnius Chilo from 43 BCE. Although, it should be noted that there are earlier references to IIII Viri on denarii. Woytek assigns the timing of the revolutionary decision to place Caesar’s image on Roman coinage to the final days of the year 45 BCE.

This issue Crawford 285, includes 2 varieties. The other coin 485/1 is a portrait coin of Julius Caesar. The portrait coin and Venus on the obverse make this clearly a pro-Caesar coin. The reverse celebrates the moneyers ancestor. The reverse echos the reverse of L. FLAMINI CILO (Crawford 302) from 108-9 BCE and possibly the grandfather of the moneyer. (RE:

Imperatorial Rome, L. Flaminius Chilo, 43 BCE, AR Denarius (18mm, 3.77g, 9h), Rome mint

Obv: IIII VIR PRI FL, diademed head of Venus right

Rev: L FLAMIN CHILO, victory, holding wreath and reins, driving galloping biga right

Ref: Crawford 485/2; CRI 171; Sydenham 1088; Flaminia 2a; RBW 1700.

It seems likely that the same Flaminius Chilo applied in the summer of 44 BCE for a position in the collegium of the tribunes of the people, which had become vacant due to a death, and that he did so with the support of Octavian (Appian, Bellum Civile III.31). However, the position ultimately remained unfilled.

It is uncertain whether the Cilo who was friends with Cicero and Toranius (Ad Familiares 6.20), from 45 BCE), or the Senator Κίλλων, who was killed during the proscriptions 43 BCE (Appian, Bellum Civile IV.27), are identical to Flaminius Chilo.

Another L. Flaminius Cilo, served as moneyer around 109-8 BCE and issued this coin. This may have been the grandfather of our moneyer (RE:Flaminius 6).

Roman Republic, L. Flaminius Cilo, 109–108 BCE, AR Denarius (18.5mm, 3.35g, 6h), Rome mint

Obv: helmeted head of Roma right; X (mark of value) under chin; legend “ROMA”

Rev: Victory galloping right in a biga, holding wreath in right hand and reins in left; legend “L. FLAMINI” above, “CILO” in exergue.

Ref: Crawford RRC 302/1

An Uncertainty

“nondum satis compertus sensus epigraphes IIII VIR PRI FL.”
"The meaning of the inscription 'IIII VIR PRI FL' is not yet sufficiently understood."
-Eckhel, 1792

What Eckhel wrote in 1792 still holds true today. Although the most common dating in auctions is 43 BCE this date leaves some unresolved questions.

Several 19th century authors and Friedrich Münzer, RE:Flaminius 7,  initially thought that Chilo was one of the 4 moneyers in 45 BCE and that he was replaced after a short period. (RE references: Mommsen, Münzwesen, p. 652, cf. p. 658; von Sallet, Die Münzen Caesars mit seinem Bildniss, pp. 85–88; see also M. von Voigt, Philologus Vol. LXIV, p. 343, line 12).

PRImus FLavit is the generally accepted reading of the PRI FL in the legend. Crawford references Cicero pro Sestio 66 for a use of the verb flare (strike) in the context of striking money.

"quod genus imperii aut quae provincia, quae ratio aut flandae aut conflandae pecuniae non reperiebatur?"
Was there any imaginable form of empire, province, or monetary policy — whether striking or gathering coins — that had not already been accounted for?

45 BCE as the date for this coin is problematic in terms of the Caesar's titles and the timing of a portrait coin. The most common resolution is to assign L. Flaminius Chilo, as a member of the board of quattuorviri monetales (four-man commission of moneyers) in the year 43 BCE. Crawford uses the 43 BCE date.

Woytek provides a long commentary on the timing and find Crawford’s assignment of Chilo’s activity to 43 BCE difficult to accept because that would suggest a pro-Caesarian monetary initiative under a hostile Senate - an implausible political scenario.

He proposes another possible date, 41 BCE (along with Lariscolus and Capitolinus). At that time, the triumviral regime (Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus) was already in control of Rome and Caesar’s image had become ideologically mainstream. Thus, a coin proclaiming "PRImus FLavit" — indicating that Chilo was the first to strike in his collegium — would no longer be politically problematic. However he acknowledges that this is also not without it's challenges.

Woytek finds an alternative expansion of PRI FL as "first moneyer" (lead amongst the 4 viri) difficult to accept for its awkward Latin construction (PRImus FLandae monetae) and there is no other evidence of the III or IIII VIRI being anything other than a college of equals.

To reconcile the legend and the date of 41 BCE he has to argue that Caesar’s deification in January 42 BCE had not yet changed the conventions on coins in early or mid-41 BCE and a denarius could still omit “DIVVS” without contradicting public convention.

His commentary concludes with Eckhel's quote on the insufficient understanding that remains.

Crawford did respond in 2012 in his review of Woytek's book. He argued that the 43 to 41 reordering proposed by Woytek is not credible and cites newer evidence from the Flores hoard that should rule out the 41 BCE hypothesis.

"Perhaps most radically, Woytek, p. 442, exchanges the college of 43 BC, in RRC, of L. Flaminius Chilo, P. Accoleius Lariscolus and Petillius Capitolinus, with the college of 41 BC, in RRC, of C. Clodius Vestalis, M. Arrius Secundus, C. Numonius Vaala and L. Seruius Rufus, largely on the grounds that the 'portrait' of Brutus on the denarius of Rufus (RRC 515/2) would be unimaginable in 41 BC. I can see that in RRC, dealing with some 250 years of coinage in less than 1,000 pages, I may have been a bit brisk with the problem. But the 'portrait' is of course anonymous: it could have spoken clandestinely to sympathisers and Rufus could always have said 'Oh, no, that's my uncle Fred'."
-Crawford, 2012

The Pasquariello hoard contains a 485/2. The Flores Hoard does not appear to be listed in the Coin Hoards of the Roman Republic database. A hoard from Potenza Italy also seems to back the chronology with an end date of 43 BC and containing a 485/1 (Flaminius) and a 486/1 (Lariscolus).

References

• Pauly, August Friedrich von, et al., editors. Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Metzler, vol XVIII.3, p1022, 1894. often referred to in English as "Pauly's Realencyclopedia of Classical Antiquity" or simply "RE".

• Mommsen, Theodor. Geschichte des Römischen Münzwesens. Berlin: Weidmann, 1860.

• Arma et Nummi, Forschungen zur römischen Finanzgeschichte und Münzprägung der Jahre 49 bis 42 v. Chr. , ÖAW, Bernhard WOYTEK, ISBN-13: 978-3-7001-3159-5 ISBN-13 Online: 978-3-7001-3525-8

• Eckhel, J. H. von, Hohler, E. Th., Steinbüchel, A. von, & Millin, A. L. (1792). Doctrina numorum veterum (Vol. 3, pt. 1). Vindobonae [Vienna]: Sumptibus Iosephi Vincentii Degen.

• Crawford, M. H. (2012). [Review of Arma et Nummi. Forschungen zur römischen Finanzgeschichte und Münzprägung der Jahre 49 bis 42 v. Chr. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist. Kl., Denkschriften. 312; Veröffentlichungen der Numismatischen Kommission. 40.), by B. Woytek]. Gnomon, 84(4), 337–342.