Talk:Triumvir monetalis

Untitled

I can find no authority that suggests the English word Money derives from the title Monetalis. Rather, the concensus seems to be that "Money" derives, through French, from the Latin word Moneta, which is likely also the source of this title. Jimtrue (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed had errors. Curtius (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Remove page

The content of this page consists of two things: 1) a definition which is much more fully dealt with on the Moneyer page (also see Roman Republican currency) 2) a statement about the origin of the English word money which is not quite correct. The accepted etymnology is described in the page on the Temple of Juno Moneta

The Triumvir Monetalis should simply redirect to Moneyer as Tresviri monetalis does currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtius (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Turnagra (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Triumvir monetalis → Tresviri monetales – group is better known in plural form Ifly6 (talk) 04:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• See WP:SINGULAR. If I understand correctly, it is reasonably natural to refer to a singular triumvirate or to a singular member of the triumvirate. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  The topic here discusses Articles on groups of distinct entities that are nevertheless often considered together (preceded almost invariably by the word "the"), such as the Florida Keys, the Americas, or the Rivers of New Zealand. WP:PLURAL. We have similar articles on similar groupings, such as vigintisexviri (also plural). Looking in the OCD, you'll see references to tresviri monetales in "vigintisexviri, vigintiviri"; similarly, "triumviri" there then says For the annual tresviri monetales and capitales/nocturni see vigintisexviri. The Second Triumvirate is the tresviri rei publicae constituendae, which also is a plural. A singular triumvirate in Latin is a plural... tresviri. The article is about the office, which is described consistently as a group of three men considered together. Ifly6 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point I do not object, but I see the article talking about a "post". As a post, it would be a position held by individual people. Each member of the triumvirate would be a single person, so it does not seem outrageous to consider the post in the singular form. As a group, yes, it would have multiple members. Clearly you are more familiar with the subject matter than I am. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have a number of objections regarding this move:

First, modern scholars use the form triumviri monetales as well, and I don't think there is a prevalence of one form over another. For what it's worth, in Google Scholar, we get 346 results for "Triumvir monetalis", 509 for "Triumviri monetales", 349 for "Tresviri monetales", and 47 for "Tres viri monetales".

Second, tresviri monetales seems to be a modern reconstruction, even though triumviri monetales was only used from the 2nd century AD (see here). Michael Crawford also writes that: "The full title of a moneyer under the Empire seems to have been triumvir (or tresvir) aere argento auro flando feriundo." (Roman Republican Coinage, p. 599).

Third, about the plural form, monetales are mostly referred together for the imperial period, but during the Republic, they used coins to display political and familial propaganda. As a result, their coins were deeply personal and they are often described individually, as triumvir monetalis. Augustus put an end to this magistrate's liberty and thereafter a moneyer was just one of a group minting the Emperor's coins. The academic literature mostly discusses the Republican moneyers and their coins, as there isn't much to say about the imperial moneyers.

That said triumvir(i)/tresviri is not entirely satisfactory, as Julius Caesar during his dictatorship increased their number to 4, therefore "quadrumviri". T8612 (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Would a move to simply "monetalis" be satisfactory? Authors generally abbreviate it as "mon. [year]". Avilich (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: It is absolutely fine as it is. As has been mentioned, it is common for scholarship to discuss individual moneyers, so there's no need to violate the standard policy of giving wiki article titles in the singular. Triumviri and tresviri are both possible plural forms, with the former being the more common (LSJ gives triumviri as the normal form, with citations to Livy and the Digest). Switching to quadrumviri or monetalis would be moves away from common name, again without any significant benefit. Furius (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Four moneyers

@T8612: You mentioned above that during Caesar's dictatorship the number increased to four. Do you have a source for that? I'd like to add it to the article. Ifly6 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ifly6: I ended rewriting most of it. I will add more when I have the time. T8612 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a good rewrite, I'll do some copyediting if I have some time. Ifly6 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@T8612: Could you expand as to what you mean by in 40 and 39, only one monetalis could actually issue his own coins before vanishing completely? Also, do we have images for the coins mentioned in the passage 54 BC with the denarius of Quintus Pompeius Rufus? It might be a nice illustration for that shift. Ifly6 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Some comments

@T8612: Sorry to constantly be pinging you! I did a few copy-edits on this article and put in some more section headings with a lede expansion (along with reference form normalisation). I have a bit of feedback on content as well:

• Perhaps some expansion might be worthwhile on how specifically Sulla... unlike Marius... mostly let moneyers display their own themes. The paragraph before only discusses a C Fundanius' 101 BC coin, then jumps twenty years to Sulla. That's a pretty large leap! Marius wasn't in power the whole time there.

• There seems to be a contradiction (though I guess the word "portrait" means it gets a pass) between the claim that C Fundanius's 101 BC coin was the first time a living person appeared on a Roman coin and the claim that coins minted in 44 were the first time a living Roman [Caesar] had his portrait on a coin. Perhaps clarification is worthwhile?

• On Caesar's portrait: do we have a picture of those first portrait coins?

These contributions look great! Ifly6 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will expand. Fundanius' coin pictured Marius but only from afar, so the coin did not break too many rules at once. Caesar put his portrait on the coins like an Hellenistic ruler. Caesar's discussed coin is the top picture, but the other moneyers that year also made a similar denarius with his portrait. T8612 (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)