HOLY MONEY, BATMAN!

So I just bought this Diocletian SACRA MONETA coin last night (seller’s pic):

Obverse: IMP DIOCLETIANVS P F AVG, His laureate head right.
Reverse: SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR, Moneta standing left holding cornucopia and scales. Upward crescent and A on either side, SIS in exergue.
Reference: RIC 134a, page 469, vol. VII.



While I await its arrival I’d like to learn more about the SACRA MONETA concept. In what sense was Roman money “holy”?

I am aware of the tradition that the early Roman mint stood adjacent to the Temple of Juno Moneta (“Juno the Warner”), and that such an association provides the ultimate source of our word “money.” But by the time of Diocletian, the “sacra” seems to modify moneta—apparently rendering the money itself sacred.

I can see how money might be related to a host of ethical concerns or prayerful hopes--fair-dealing, honesty, abundance, prosperity--indeed, these concerns are implied in reverse depictions of Moneta (?) holding scales and a cornucopia. But the phrase “sacred money” elevates money to a kind of divine status that strikes me as odd, even for the Romans.

I would be grateful for any thoughts on how money could be deemed “holy” in the Roman mind. Or am I misreading this concept? And feel free to post any depictions of Moneta. Was she a proper goddess actively worshiped, or more of a symbolic representation of an idea, sort of like the winged victory on coins minted well into the Christian period?

OK. I’ve already asked too many questions. Somebody educate me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It strikes me that money being sacred would make counterfeiters and thieves the kind of people that we the people of Rome ought to crucify. At least it would make clear that offences against the public monetary system would be taken seriously. Don't fool with mother Juno. It might not go well for you. I'm not all that sure that attitude is not better than the one we have today where people who call me on the phone trying to steal my money or identity are considered business people rather than dangers to the public good.

 

You act as if there haven't been other deities responsible for either wealth or plentitude. Look at Chinese religion, Buddhism, Hinduism, even ancient Greek religion and you'll find Deities responsible for a bountiful harvest, wealth, abundance, etc. These were serious matters especially in a pre-industrial world where one bad season could mean tens of thousands of city dwellers starving to death and political/social unrest for the kingdom/empire.

Juno Moneta wasn't just about money, she also kept away instability (ie. Ensured abundance and kept away the bad stuff that comes with scarcity of stuff (ie. Famine, a depleted Treasury, political instability, etc.) If I was an Emperor I'd want her on my side.

 

Sorry. I can't answer your questions, but your new coin is quite nice especially the portrait.

DOMITIAN
AE As
OBVERSE: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM COS XI CENS POT P P, laureate head right, aegis at tip of bust
REVERSE: MONETA AVGVSTI, S-C, Moneta standing left, holding scales & cornucopiae
Struck at Rome, 85AD
11.7g, 27mm
RIC 384

POSTUMUS
Antoninianus
OBVERSE: IMP C POSTVMVS P F AVG, radiate, draped and
cuirassed bust right
REVERSE: MONETA AVG, Moneta standing left holding scales and cornucopiae
Struck at Cologne, 262-5 AD
3.7g. 21mm
RIC 75

DIOCLETIAN
AE27 Follis
OBVERSE: IMP DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG, laureate head right
REVERSE: SACR MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR, Moneta standing left, holding scales & cornucopia, AQS in ex.; crescent and VI across fields
Struck at Aquileia, 304-305 AD
8.1g, 27mm
RIC VI Aquileia 39a

CONSTANTIUS I
AE Follis
OBVERSE: CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES, Laurate bust, right
REVERSE: SAC MON VRB AVGG ET CAESS NN, Moneta standing left, holding scales and cornucopiae. Star in right field. Mintmark RT
Struck at Rome 302-303 AD
8.8g, 27mm
RIC VI 106a

 

PS: Moneta was not the only one depicted with the balance scale (libra) and the cornucopiae. Look at Aequitas. She is depicted just like Moneta. The only thing that really tells them appart is the inscription.

The scale stood for fairness and honest measure, etc. The cornucopiae was a symbol of plentifulness, wealth, etc.

 

Helpful posts, all-- the images of Moneta as well as the philosophical justifications for her "holiness." Sallent's parallels from other religions make a lot of sense.

 

Should we mention that sometimes we are shown three monetae - one for each metal. This is a sestertius of Septimius Severus.


The one below is exceptional in having the three figures but Aequitas legend. It is also a bit exceptional for being a silver medallion with traces of gold.
https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=117846

 

Yes we should mention that. I knew about Moneta. I did not know there were three Monetae. Fascinating.

 

hmmmm...i thought on a legend with the deity it was just saying "juno moneta is sacred to us"? kind of like "In Juno We Trust"?

 

So let's ask the question.....

If the legend doesn't tell you whether it is Moneta or Aequitas then how would we describe the deity?

The following coin has a Fortuna related legend but the deity holds scales. I hedged my bets calling it either. A discussion with Curtis led him to call it Aequitas though probably due to expediency.

Septimius Severus denarius

Obv:– IMP CAE L SEP SEV PERT AVG II C, laureate head right
Rev:– FORTVAE(sic) REDVCI, Moneta/Aequitas standing left, holding scales in right hand, cornucopiae in left
Minted in Emesa. A.D. 193
Reference(s) – BMCRE -. RIC -. RSC -.

2.99g, 17.53mm, 180o

Additional comments from Curtis Clay - "This combination of the FORTVNAE REDVCI legend with a type of Aequitas is reported on a denarius of Pescennius Niger by Cohen 25 (in a private collection), but does not seem to have been attested before for either Septimius Severus or Julia Domna, at least I can't find any such coin in BMC or RSC"

 

Not to mention the present day "Prosperity Gospels." I don't see much difference between SACRA MONETA and IN GOD WE TRUST. It's the same sentiment: paying tribute to God or the gods for our wealth.

 

Diocletian
Bronze 27mm
Ticinum
IMP C DIOCLETIANVS PF AVG
laureate head right (large head type)
SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR
Moneta standing left holding scales and cornucopiae. Star in R field,
300-303 AD
RIC 47a

This has had a very short soak in the soup, but I wanted to preserve the silver that remains.
Sellers Pics

 

Sorry to resurrect this dead thread, but I meant to ask one follow-up question: Was this “Sacra Moneta” coin struck by the tetrarchs related in any meaningful way to Diocletian’s coinage reform? I know that Diocletian’s attempted reform was an initiative of 294 A.D., and the Sacra Moneta coinage was struck ca. 300, so the relationship seems tangential at best. But I seem to recall someone making this association, and I wanted to see if anyone could confirm or reject the possible connection.

The full reverse legend reads, "SACRA MONET AVGG ET CAESS NOSTR; “Sacred money of our augusti and caesars."

 

The Edict on Maximum Prices was issued in 301

 

Dead Thread Zombie. We are well acquainted.

 

Dead thread zombie rises again...as does Juno Moneta as a motif on coins.

I just learned of this modern issue and thought it most relevant to post here.

 

Really nice coin - I have been looking for an example with Aequitas for years.

 

Numerian issued a medallion with the three moneta which is interesting because technically one could argue that only gold and silver washed coins were being issued at the time.

 

According to Melville Jones (Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins), in the early empire the word "moneta" means "mint", not "coin". At first "Moneta" was an alternative name of the Goddess Juno and in the Republic the mint was near the temple of Juno Moneta. Later the term "moneta" also means a mintage, or even actual coins.

So the three moneta probably refer to the sections of the mint(s) that make copper, silver, and gold coins.

Diocletian reformed the coinage. His reform introduced new denominations. Nevertheless, it was not a complete success as the "Edict of Maximum Prices" proves. I will follow up on the idea it refers to an issue of the mint, rather than individual coins. Then, maybe this type is saying "This new denomination of coin (i.e. this issue) and its proclaimed value must be regarded as sacred." Don't mess with prices!