Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Just What Is a Nummus?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="dltsrq, post: 8161825, member: 75482"]Random-ish thoughts. To begin, I think it is important to understand that the use of <i>nummus </i>by modern writers has its own technical sense which may or may not comport precisely with ancient uses.</p><p><br /></p><p>That said, the Latin term, as as others have noted, derives from the Greek and according to Mattingly and Robinson in the article linked below, originally referred specifically to the didrachm, the only Roman silver coin of the early period. As time went on and the Roman coinage evolved, “the term <i>nummus</i> became ambiguous and needed to be defined by adjectives expressing denomination (<i>denarius</i>) or type (<i>victoriatus</i>).”</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/289674" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/289674" rel="nofollow">https://www.jstor.org/stable/289674</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Fast forward to the late 4th century and two laws preserved in the <i>Codex Theodosianus.</i> The first, a law of 395 (9.23.2) refers to two coins then in circulation, <i>centenionalis nummus </i>and <i>decargyrus nummus</i>, both <i>nummi</i> and so requiring further adjectival definition. The law itself demonetizes the “large”<i> decargyrus </i>(believed to be the silvered AE2) and removes it from circulation, leaving the smaller <i>centenionalis </i>as the sole <i>nummus</i> in circulation:</p><p><br /></p><p>“We command that only the <i>centenionalis nummus</i> shall be handled in public use and that the larger money shall be abolished. No person, therefore, shall dare to exchange the <i>decargyrus nummus</i> for another, and he shall know that the aforesaid money, which can be seized if found in public use, will be vindicated to the fisc.”</p><p><br /></p><p>A few years later, a law of 398 (14.19.1) again refers to the <i>nummus</i> but without further qualification because (apparently) only one variety was then in public use:</p><p><br /></p><p>“The price of Ostian bread. It is our will that Ostian and fiscal bread shall be sold for one nummus (<i>uno nummo</i>). Furthermore, we sanction that no person by the authority of a sacred imperial rescript shall dare to increase the price, and if any person should offer such a supplication to the Emperor, a fine of two pounds of gold shall be inflicted upon him.“</p><p><br /></p><p>What ever you do, don’t ask the emperor to raise the price of bread! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie57" alt=":jawdrop:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="dltsrq, post: 8161825, member: 75482"]Random-ish thoughts. To begin, I think it is important to understand that the use of [I]nummus [/I]by modern writers has its own technical sense which may or may not comport precisely with ancient uses. That said, the Latin term, as as others have noted, derives from the Greek and according to Mattingly and Robinson in the article linked below, originally referred specifically to the didrachm, the only Roman silver coin of the early period. As time went on and the Roman coinage evolved, “the term [I]nummus[/I] became ambiguous and needed to be defined by adjectives expressing denomination ([I]denarius[/I]) or type ([I]victoriatus[/I]).” [URL]https://www.jstor.org/stable/289674[/URL] Fast forward to the late 4th century and two laws preserved in the [I]Codex Theodosianus.[/I] The first, a law of 395 (9.23.2) refers to two coins then in circulation, [I]centenionalis nummus [/I]and [I]decargyrus nummus[/I], both [I]nummi[/I] and so requiring further adjectival definition. The law itself demonetizes the “large”[I] decargyrus [/I](believed to be the silvered AE2) and removes it from circulation, leaving the smaller [I]centenionalis [/I]as the sole [I]nummus[/I] in circulation: “We command that only the [I]centenionalis nummus[/I] shall be handled in public use and that the larger money shall be abolished. No person, therefore, shall dare to exchange the [I]decargyrus nummus[/I] for another, and he shall know that the aforesaid money, which can be seized if found in public use, will be vindicated to the fisc.” A few years later, a law of 398 (14.19.1) again refers to the [I]nummus[/I] but without further qualification because (apparently) only one variety was then in public use: “The price of Ostian bread. It is our will that Ostian and fiscal bread shall be sold for one nummus ([I]uno nummo[/I]). Furthermore, we sanction that no person by the authority of a sacred imperial rescript shall dare to increase the price, and if any person should offer such a supplication to the Emperor, a fine of two pounds of gold shall be inflicted upon him.“ What ever you do, don’t ask the emperor to raise the price of bread! :jawdrop:[/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Just What Is a Nummus?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...