I suspect that if I were to pose the question “what is the
Roman coin denomination pictured above” there would be large number of
responses of “antoninianus”. Whilst this is not technically incorrect as it is
the name we now use for the coin type it is a modern sobriquet. The Roman in
the street would not recognise the term.
I do not know when the term was first applied to the radiate
third century coin, initially made of silver in the third century and
progressively debased to a nadir under Claudius II and reformed under Aurelian.
It does not appear to have been a term applied in the 18th century. Even
during the 19th century the term takes a while to become established.
Akerman in his Descriptive Catalogue of Rare and Unedited Roman
Coins (1836) does not use the term antoninianus. Neither does Humphrey in his Coin
Collectors Manual (1853) where the radiate silver coin of Caracalla is called the
argenteus.
The Handbook to Roman Coins by Madden (1861) uses the phrase
argenteus antoninianus and by the 1880s the
term antoninianus is in common usage, for example Rohde, Die Munzpragung des Kaisers
Aurelianus (1881).
So, is there any classical use of the phrase antoninianus? The
short answer is yes, however it is not in reference to the silver coin of the third
century where the emperor is shown wearing a radiate crown.
The Historia August, the ancient text that provides historical
sketches of the emperor’s in a sometimes fanciful manner does use the term antoninianus
to describe a coin of Caracalla (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus). Unfortunately that
numismatic reference is to a coin in gold. The same text also contains reference
to the philippeus, one time referring to a gold piece but several other references
are to the silver coins. There are other coin references in the text to imperial
coins and each time it is cited in the form of a coin of x, for example a saloninianus.
Hence the picture above, you might say there are four third century philippei, not antoniniani, as we are so used to calling them.
