MECKLENBURG-STRELITZ, a grand duchy in the north of Germany. It is composed of two portions of the old duchy of Strelitz and the principality of Ratzeburg, and has some territory intermixed with that of other states. It extends over 796 square miles, and comprehends nine cities and towns, 219 villages, 245 princely domains, and 10,805 houses, with 45,500 inhabitants, chiefly employed in cultivation, who all adhere to the Lutheran church, with the exception of about fifty catholics and 750 Jews. The income of the state amounts to £50,000 annually, chiefly arising from the ducal domains. The public debt is so interwoven with that of Mecklenburg-Schwerin that its exact amount is not known, but by the operation of a sinking fund it is decreasing. The regular forces consists of a battalion of infantry and a division of husars, numbering together 772 individuals. The courts of law for both Mecklenburgs are united. King George III. having married a princess of the house, has connected it with the royal family of England. The capital is the city of Strelitz, with 5350 inhabitants. There are in the duchy mines yielding silver, lead, and iron; the last of these is worked into the various articles for which it is adapted at the several manufactories of the duchy. The [7:14:463]Medal denotes a piece of metal in the form of a coin, such as was either current money amongst the ancients, or had been struck upon any particular occasion, in order to preserve to posterity the portrait of some great person, or the memory of some illustrious action. Scaliger derives the word medal from the Arabic methalia, a sort of coin having on it a human head. But the generally received opinion is that of Vossius, viz. that it comes from metallum, metal, of which substance medals are commonly made.

I.— Utility of Medals in History and other Sciences.

There are few studies of more importance to history than that of medals; the sole evidence we can have of the veracity of a historian being only such collateral documents as are evident to every body, and cannot be falsified. In modern times these are found in public memoirs, instructions to ambassadors, and state papers of various kinds. Such memorials, however, are subject to various accidents, and, besides, commonly remain in the countries where they are first published, and cannot therefore give to the world at large that perfect and entire satisfaction which ought to be derived from genuine history; and hence more durable and widely diffused monuments are still to be wished for. Such are public buildings, inscriptions, and statues; but these, excepting a few instances of the two last, are always confined to particular countries; and medals alone remain as infallible documents of truth, capable of being diffused throughout all/countries in the world, and of remaining to the latest ages.

The first who showed the importance of medals in ascertaining the dates and arranging the order of events in ancient history, was Vaillant, in his History of the Kings of Syria, printed at Paris in 1681. By means of medals alone he has been enabled to fix the chronology and important events in the history of the three most ancient kingdoms of the world; namely, Egypt, Syria, and Parthia. Since his time there have been discovered many coins which confirm the accounts he has given. He was followed in this method by Father Hardouin, though with much less success. Hardouin’s best work is his Herodiades, or series of successors to Herod king of Judaea. The same plan was pursued by Noris in his Treatise on the Syro-Macedonian princes, and by Bayer in his History of Osrhoene, as well as by Froelich in his Annales Regum et Rerum Syriae, Vienna, 1754, and Kevenhuller’s Regum veterum Numismata Anecdota, auctore Perrara, Vienna, 1752, 4to, of which Froelich was properly the author. Corsini and Cary likewise published works of a similar nature; that of the former appeared in 1744, under the title of De Minni- fari, aliorumque Armenia Regum, Nummis ; the latter published, in 1752, Histoire des Rois de Thrace, et du Bosphore Cimmerien, eclaircie par les Médailles.

The study of the Greek coins does not show the dates of events, though it illustrates the chronology of reigns. This defect, however, is abundantly supplied by those of Rome, which commonly mark the date of the prince’s consulship, and the year of his tribunician power; giving also, upon the reverse, the representation or poetical symbol of some grand event. The year of the tribunician power is sometimes imagined by antiquaries to be synonymous with that of the emperor’s reign; but this is not the case; and Mr Pinkerton is at some pains to. set them right in this respect. He finds fault with Julius Caesar, when he assumed the sovereign authority, for taking upon him the title of Perpetual Dictator, as being synonymous with that of king or absolute governor, which the Romans abhorred. “He ought,” says our author, “under the disguise of some supreme magistracy of annual election, to have lulled the people with a dream that they might terminate his power when they pleased, or that he himself would resign it when the necessities of state, which had required his temporary elevation, had subsided.” To this error Mr Pinkerton ascribes the assassination of the dictator, and commends the policy of Augustus, who, with far inferior abilities, continued in possession of the most absolute authority as long as he lived. The tribuneship was an office of annual election, and, if put into the hands of any others than plebeians, must have been the supreme power of the state, as it belonged to that office to put a negative upon every public measure whatsoever. Augustus, being of senatorial rank, could not assume this office; but he invested himself with the tribunician power, which had the advantages of appearing to be only a temporary supremacy, though in truth it was continued during his whole lifetime. Towards the end of his reign, he frequently assumed his intended successor, Tiberius, as his colleague, though in the beginning he had enjoyed it alone. This, with the artifice of resigning his power every ten years, and re-assuming it at the desire, as was pretended, of the senate, secured his sovereignty as long as he lived. His example was followed by his successors; so that most of them have the inscription Tribunicia Potestate upon their medals, with the date affixed to it; thus, Tr. Pot. VII. Yet though this date generally implies the year of the emperor’s reign, it sometimes happens that the emperor, by special favour from a former prince, had been endowed with this title before he came to the throne, as being the successor to that prince; of which we have already given an instance in Tiberius. Besides the tribunician power, the emperors very frequently enjoyed that of the consuls; and the date of their consulship is frequently expressed in their coins.

The office of Pontifex Maximus was likewise assumed by the Roman emperors, in order to secure themselves in their authority; an artifice which, Mr Pinkerton observes, was one of the most efficacious they could have fallen upon. “In the Greek heroic times,” says he, “king and priest were carefully united in one person; and when sovereigns arose in Denmark and Sweden, the same plan was followed, as appears from Snorro and other writers. Nothing could lend more security to the person of the monarch than an office of supreme sanctity, which also confirmed his power by all the terrors of superstition. Even the Christian system was afterwards debased by a mock alliance with government, though it be clear from the whole New Testament that such an alliance is subversive of its genuine institution, and the greatest of all its corruptions. But the Roman Catholic clergy, in the dark ages, were the authors of ‘ no church, no king,’ for their own interest; whilst the Roman emperors only sought to strengthen their power by the mystic awe of supérstition. The title of Pontifex Maximus was so important, that it was retained even by the Christian emperors till the time of Gratian. Its influence in the state was indeed prodigious. Cicero observes, that to this office were subject temples, altars, penates, gods, houses, wealth, and the fortune of the people.” That of augur is also borne by many emperors; and its authority was such that, by the law of the twelve tables, no public business could be transacted without a declaration from the augur concerning its event. The proconsular power was also given to Augustus and the other emperors. It conferred a direct authority over all the provinces, and [7:14:464]implied that the emperor was chief proconsul or governor of each and of all. Another special power assigned to the emperors, but not occurring on coins, was the Jus Relationis Tertiae, Quartae, &c. or the right of making three or four motions in the senate on the same day, whilst the senators could only propose one.

Hence it has been inferred that medals afford the most authentic documents of the Roman history, in particular, that could have been invented by man. The histories of Nerva and Trajan are much better elucidated by medals than by authors; for the history of Suetonius ends with Domitian, and the Historiae Augustae Scriptores begin with Hadrian; so that the reigns of the two emperors just mentioned are almost unknown, and Mr Pinkerton is surprised that none of the learned have attempted to supply the defect. “Capitolinus,” says he, “in his life of Maximinus Junior, is quite puzzled to know if Maximus and Pupicnus were two emperors, or two names for the same. Fl ad he happened to consult any of those coins which bear Μ. Cl. Pupienus Maximus Aug. he would have seen at once that Maximus was only another name for Pupienus.”

Medals are useful in other sciences besides history. In geography, we find the situation of towns determined by their vicinity to some noted river, mountain, or other physical object. Thus, ΜΑΓΝΗΤΩΝ 2IΠTΛ0T shows that Magnesia is situated under Mount Sipylus. In like manner, it is shown from a medal that Ephesus stood on the river Cayster; and there is extant a medal bearing an inscription which signifies Alexandria on the Scamander, a name given to Troy by Alexander the Great. The reverse has upon it the famous Apollo Smintheus of Homer. In natural history, also, medals are useful chiefly from the coins struck on the celebration of the secular games, in which the figures of various animals are preserved; and thus it may very often be determined whether any animal was known to the ancients or not. On many of the Greek medals are several uncommon plants and animals. Thus, on most of the medals of Cyrene is the figure of the celebrated Sy-phium ; and on those of Tyre, the shell-fish from which the famous Tyrian purple was procured. By means of medals, also, the exact delineations of many noble edifices are preserved, though not even a vestige of their ruins be now in existence; so that the uses of them to the architect are very considerable. To the connoisseur they arc absolutely necessary; because by them alone he is enabled to ascribe ancients busts and statues to their proper persons, with multitudes of other points of knowledge which cannot be otherwise determined. 'The elucidations of obscure passages in ancient authors, by means of medals, are so numerous and well known that it is needless to insist upon them.

Mr Addison has treated the connection between medals and poetry at considerable length; but Mr Pinkerton finds fault with him for preferring the Latin to the Greek poets. He observes, also, that the knowledge of Greek medals is most necessary for a sculptor, and perhaps an architect; but an acquaintance with Latin ones is preferable for a poet, or perhaps a painter. The reason of this difference is, that the former generally have on the obverse the head of some king, god, or goddess, of exquisite relief and workmanship; but the reverse seldom exhibits much fancy of symbol in the early Greek coins, and in the imperial Greek coins is chiefly impressed with the temples of their deities. To a person of poetical imagination, however, the Roman coins afford the greatest entertainment, from the fine personifications and symbols to be found on their reverses. Of this the following are instances.

Happiness has sometimes the caduceus or wand of Mercury, which, Cicero tells us, was thought to procure every wish. She has, in a gold coin of Severus, heads of poppy, 4sλ *>xoress that our prime happiness consists in the oblivion of misfortune. Hope is represented as a sprightly girl, walking quickly, and looking straight forward. With her left hand she gathers up her garments, that they may not impede the rapidity of her pace; whilst in her right hand she holds forth the bud of a flower, an emblem infinitely finer and more poetical than the trite one of an anchor, which is the symbol of Patience, and not of Hope. This personification, with some others, must have been very familiar to the ancients; for often in this, and in a few more instances, no name, as Spes Aug. or the like, is inserted in the legend. Abundance is imagined as a sedate matron, with a cornuCopiae in her hands, of which she scatters the fruits, and does not hold up her cornucopiae and keep the contents to herself, as many modern poets and painters make her do.

The Emperor Titus having occasion to import a great supply of corn during a scarcity at Rome, that supply, or the Annona, is finely represented as a sedate lady, with a filled cornucopiae in her left hand, which she holdsupright, to indicate that sb.e does not, however, mean to scatter it, as Abundance has a title to do, but to give it to Equity to deal out. This last particular is shown by her holding a little image of Equity, who is known by her scales, and kasta pura, or pointless spear, in her right hand, over a basket filled with wheat. Behind the Annona is the prow of a ship decked with flowers, to imply that the corn was brought by sea (from Africa), and that the ships had had a prosperous voyage. The best poet in the world could scarcely have given us a finer train of imagery; and the best painter might have been puzzled to express so much matter in so small a compass.

Security stands leaning upon a pillar, indicative of her being free from all designs and pursuits; and the posture itself corresponds to her name. Horace, in describing the wise man, mentions his being teres atque rotundus, round and polished, against all the rules of chance; an idea seemingly derived from the column upon which this ideal lady reclines. The emblems of Piety, Modesty, and the like, arc equally apposite and poetical.

The happiness of the state is pictured by a ship sailing before a prosperous breeze; an image than which the exquisite genius of Gray could find none more appropriate, and he has accordingly used it in his principal production, The Bard, with due success.

The different countries of the then known world are also delineated with great poetical imagery. It affords patriotic satisfaction, in particular, to a Briton, to see his native island often represented upon the earliest imperial coins, sitting on a globe, with a symbol of military power, the labarum, in her hand, and the ocean rolling under her feet; an emblem almost prophetic of the vast power which she was destined afterwards to obtain by establishing her dominion over the sea.

Coins also present us with Achaia, Africa, Alamannia, Alexandria, Arabia, Armenia, Asia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, Dacia, Dardania, Egypt, Gallia, Hispania, Italia, Judaea, Macedon, Mauritania, Pannonia, Parthia, Phrygia, Sarmatia. Sicily, Scythia, Syria, and the rivers Danube, Nile, Rhine, Tiber. This personification of provinces seems to have arisen from the figures of provinces carried in triumphs; as the personification of our old poets sprung from the ideal persons actually represented in the myste-rial plays. There is one colonial medal, rudely executed, of Augustus and Agrippa, which has a high claim to merit in displaying the ancient poetical imagery. It is inscribed Imp. and Dwi. F.; and on the reverse the conquest of Egypt is represented by the metaphor of a crocodile, an animal almost peculiar to that country, and at that period esteemed altogether so, which is chained to a palm tree, at once a native of the country and a symbol of victory.

As the reverses are so useful for knowledge of personification, [7:14:465]symbols of countries and actions, and the like, so the portraits to be seen on old coins are no less important to a painter, the high merit of a great number of them, in every character, justly entitling them to be regarded as the best studies in the world; not to mention that, to an historical painter, the science of ancient medals is absolutely necessary, that he may delineate his personages with the featureswhich they really bore whilst inexistence. This can only be attained in the way here mentioned, or from statues and busts, any one of which will cost as much as hundreds of medals; and indeed a collection of such is only attainable by princes.

The same circumstances which render the study of medals important to a painter, do still more so to á sculptor; and, in this particular, the study of the Greek coins is remarkably useful. The skill of the Greeks in the art of sculpture has always been admired throughout the world; and on their coins the heads of several deities are represented in the most exquisite alto relievo. Pinkerton, therefore, thinks it strange that the Grecian coins should have hitherto been so little attended to by men of learning and taste. They may have been looked upon, he supposes, as belonging only to the province of the antiquary; but he assures us that the Greek medals will afford satisfaction to the persons who value them only as pieces of workmanship. In most respects they greatly excel those of Rome, even in its best times, which is usually supposed to have been from the days of Augustus to Hadrian. In the days of Hadrian, in particular, the Roman mint seems to have been the very seat of art and genius; witness the vast number of exquisite personifications, engraved with equal workmanship, which swarm on the medals of that prince. Yet from his time down to Posthumus, coins of admirable workmanship are to be found. Those of the Faustinas and Lucilla deserve particular mention. There is one, and not an uncommon one, of the latter, in great brass, which yields to nothing of the kind. The reverse is a Venus, with the name around her. The portrait of the obverse seems to spring from the field of the coin; it looks and breathes, nay talks, if you trust your eyes. The coins of Tarsus are, as Froelich observes, extremely remarkable for a kind of perspective in the figures. On others are found triumphal arches, temples, fountains, aqueducts, amphitheatres, circuses, hippodromes, palaces, basilicas, columns and obelisks, baths, sea-ports, pharoses, and the like. These furnish much pleasure and instruction to the architect, and serve to form his taste to the ancient manner; that manner which unites perfect simplicity with sublimity and grace, and which every age admires, in proportion as it has genius to imitate.

II.— Entertainment arising from the Study of Medals.

Besides the purposes which the study of medals answers in the useful arts, a great variety of sources of entertainment are to be found in it. Mr Pinkerton observes, thst the most barbarous nations are more pleased with the rudest efforts of art than with the most admirable works of nature; and that in proportion as the powers of the mind are large and various, such are also the pleasures which it receives from those superlative productions of art, which can only be the offspring of great genius. Hence works of art are agreeable both to the enlightened and to the ignorant. The chief amusement, therefore, which attends the study of medals, originates from the strength and spirit, the finish and beauty, which the engraver has displayed in the execution of them. It besides gives a kind of personal acquaintance with the individuals ofwhom they are the representations. Portraits have always been highly entertaining to mankind; and Pinkerton is of opinion that the love of them gave rise both to painting and sculp ture. They are nowhere to be found so ancient, so numerous, and so well preserved, as in medals. Amusement is also derived even from the representations of ideal heads and persons; nay, even from the minutest symbols. Thus the Greek coins of cities present us with heads of deities of exquisite workmanship, apparently copied from statues or paintings; so that we may even guess at the works of Apelles and Praxiteles from some of the Greek medals. Their reverses exhibit still greater variety, there being scarcely an object either in art or nature which is not represented upon some of them; and to the satisfaction arising from a view of these we may likewise add that of beholding, in a lively manner, the dresses, manners and customs, religious and civil ceremonies, of the ancients; so that from medals we may obtain an interesting history of manners, which, though but lately cultivated, may perhaps become the most useful and entertaining of all the provinces of history.

There is a very considerable difference between the study of medals and that of a mere antiquary. The latter seems frequently to take delight in coins merely in proportion to their rust and deformity; so that it is often a recommendation of some of their pieces that neither portrait, reverse, nor legend can be discovered, at least in such a manner as may be intelligibly explained. “The delight of the antiquarist,” says'Mr Pinkerton, “may be called a depraved appetite of the mind, which feeds on trash, and fills itselfwith emptiness. It is perhaps a mere childish curiosity mingled with caprice and hypochondri-cism. Against this character the ridicule of Severus is particularly shot, but with little effect; for our antiquists exceed in visions and nonsense. I say antiquists, for the name of antiquary is sacred. By antiquary, in foreign countries, is implied a man who illustrates their ancient laws, manners, poetry, but especially their ancient history. There, men of the most elevated minds are antiquaries; as Muratori, Leibnitz, Montesquieu, Dubos. Here, men of talents will not stoop, forsooth, to studies the most important to their country, but leave its antiquities to chance. Every thing is important but our history; and we are profound in every ancient matter that is superficial, and superficial in what is profound. Even England cannot boast of one general historian, but trusts to the inaccuracy of Rapin and the ignorant neatness of Hume. It is therefore no wonder that the study of antiquity is here ridiculous, though most important in other countries; none requiring greater talents, learning, or industry. But the historic antiquary has the pleasure of benefiting society, and enlightening whole nations, while the medallic has only an innocent amusement. This amusement, considered merely as arising from antiquarian objects, has not been explained, though felt by most people, and more by the learned. It seems analogical with that which we derive from an extensive prospect; for as the mind delights to expand itself into distant places, so also into distant times. We connect ourselves with these times, and feel as it were a double existence. The passions are singularly affected by minute circumstances, though mute to generalities; and the relics of antiquity impress us more than its general history.”

HI.— History of Medals.

The study of medals is not of very ancient date. None of the classical writers gives any account of collections of them, though indeed many little particulars are passed without notice by them. In the times of the Greeks, a collection of such coins as then existed must have been but little regarded, as consisting only of those struck by the numerous little states which at that time used the Greek characters and language. Hence they would have [7:14:466]had an air of domestic coinage, and no attention would have been paid to them, however exquisite their workmanship might have been. The little intercourse at that time carried on between the different provinces, also, greatly impeded any communication of knowledge to those who wrote histories; so that it is no wonder to find any small collections which might then have existed altogether unnoticed by them.

Almost as soon as any communication was opened between the Greeks and Romans, the latter treated the arts of the Greeks with all due respect and applause. Their coins were imitated by the Romans, and preserved in cabinets by the senators amongst their choicest treasures. Suetonius informs us, that on solemn occasions Augustus was accustomed to present his friends with medals of foreign states and princes, along with other valuable testimonies of his friendship. In a more advanced period of the Roman empire, however, individuals would undoubtedly form collections of coins peculiar to their own state; for Dr Stukeley, in his Medallic History of Carausius, informs us that a complete series of silver coins was lately found in Britain, containing all the emperors down to Carausius inclusively. From Banduri we also learn that certain Greek coins were specially preserved by the Romans; and it appears from their code, that ancient gold and silver coins were made use of instead of gems, to which distinction those of Sicily were particularly entitled. From the decline of the Roman empire until towards the end of the fifth century, almost all branches of literature were involved in darkness, and the science of medals amongst the rest. Whilst the Christian dominion of Constantinople lasted, indeed, almost all the arts and sciences may be said to have been confined within its boundaries, though the Arabs and eastern nations had some arts and sciences of their own; but after the destruction of the imperial city by the Turks, the Greeks were once more compelled to become the fathers of European science. Even before this time, indeed, some vestiges of a revival of literature had appeared in Italy; and so intimate and necessary a connection has now the study of medals with that of ancient erudition, that on the earliest appearance of a revival of the latter, the former was also cultivated.

The first amongst the moderns who began to study the science of medals was Petrarch. Being desired by the emperor Charles IV. to compose a book containing the lives of eminent men, and to place him in the list, he replied that he would do so whenever the emperor’s life and conduct deserved it. In consequence of this conversation, he afterwards sent the emperor a collection of gold and silver coins bearing the representations of eminent men, with an address suitable to his former declaration. A collection of coins was made in the next age by Alphonse king of Aragon; but though this monarch collected all that could be found throughout Italy, we know that there could not have been very many, as the whole were contained in an ivory cabinet, and carried always about with him. A very considerable collection was made by Anthony Cardinal St Mark, nephew to Eugene IV. who ascended the pontifical chair in 14 i 31∙, and soon afterwards the grand museum at Florence was begun by Cosmo de’ Medici, where a collection of ancient coinsand medals had a place amongst other curiosities. Corvinus king of Hungary about the same time formed a noble collection of coins, along with ancient manuscripts and other valuable relics of antiquity.

Mr Pinkerton considers Agnolo Poliziano, more commonly known by the name of Angélus Politianus, as the first writer who produced medals as vouchers of ancient orthography and customs. He cites different coins of the Medicean collection in his Miscellanea, written about the year 1490. By means of a cabinet of medals which had been formed by Maximilian I. emperor of Germany, Joannes Hut-tichius was enabled to publish a book of the lives of the emperors, enriched with their portraits delineated from ancient coins. It is generally supposed that this book, which appeared in 1525, was the first work of this kind; but Labbe, in his Bibliotheca Nummaria, mentions another named Illustrium Imagines, by one Andreas Fulvius, printed in 1517, in which most of the portraits seem to be from medals. About the year 1512, also, Guillaume Bude, a French author, had written his treatise De Asse, though it was not printed till many years afterwards. Μ. Grollier, treasurer of the French armies in Italy, during part of the sixteenth century, had a great collection of coins of different kinds of metals. After his death his brass medals were sent to Provence, and were about to be conveyed to Italy, when the king of France, having got information of the transaction, gave orders to stop them, and purchased the whole at a very high price, for his own cabinet of antiquities. Μ, Grollier had an assortment of gold and silver as well as of brass medals; but the cabinet in which they were contained fell, two centuries afterwards, into the hands of Μ. l’Abbé de Bothelin, and was known to have been that of Grollier, from some slips of paper, on which was his usual inscription for his books, Joannis Grollierii et amicoum. There are few countries, Italy excepted, in which a greater number of coins have been found than in Britain; though we are by no means well acquainted with the time when the study of them commenced. Mr Pinkerton suspects that Camden was one of the first, if not the very first British author, who produced medals in his works, and who must have had a small collection. Speed’s Chronicle, published in the seventeenth century, was illustrated by means of coins from Sir Robert Cotton’s cabinet.

IV.— Materials of which Medals are constructed.

Medals are formed of gold, silver, and the various modifications of copper. The gold usually made use of in coinage is about the fineness of twenty-two carats; and as the art of purifying this metal was very imperfectly known in former times, the most ancient medals are for this reason much more impure than the modern coins. Gold is never found in its native state above twenty-two carats fine; and the very ancient medals are much under that standard. Many of them are composed of a mixture of gold and silver, called by the ancients electrum. The gold medals were made of much finer metal after Philip of Macedonia became possessed of the gold mines of Philippi in Thrace; and the medals of his son Alexander the Great are equally fine, as well as those of some other princes of that age. Those of the Egyptian Ptolemies are of the fineness of twenty-three carats three grains, with only one grain of alloy. The Roman coins are very pure even from the earliest times; the art of refining gold having been well known before any was coined ∙at Rome. Some authors are of opinion that the Roman coins begin to fall short of their purity after the time of Titus; but Mr Pinkerton denies that any thing of this kind took place till the time of the emperor Severus, and even then only in a very few instances. Most of the Roman gold was brought from Dalmatia and Dacia, where that metal is still to be met with.

Pliny informs us, and indeed it is generally known, that gold and silver are found mixed together in the earth. Where the silver amounted to one fifth part of the gold, the metal was called electrum ; but sometimes the proportion of silver was added artificially. The gold was in those days, as well as at present, refined by means of mercury; and the ancient artists had certainly attained to great perfection in this branch of metallurgy, as Bodin tells us that the goldsmiths of Paris, upon melting one of Vespasian’s gold coins, found only 7 ⅛ 11 th part of alloy.
[7:14:467]

Most of the ancient silver, particularly that of Greece, is less pure than that of succeeding times; even the Roman silver is rather inferior to the present standard, and that from the very beginning; but in the time of Severus the silver appears to have been very bad, and it continued so until the tjme of Diocletian. Many writers upon this subject have mistaken the denarii acrei, coins of brass washed with silver, for silver currency. Silver coins are extremely scarce from the time of Claudius Gothicus to that of Diocletian, or from the year 270 to 284, in which short space not fewer than eight emperors reigned. Silver at that time was found mostly in Spain, and the commerce with that country was disturbed by the usurpers who arose in Gaul; and such were the troubles of the times, that not only the silver, but also the gold coins, of those emperors, are extremely scarce. There is still, however, some silver extant of those eight emperors; and it is certain that copper washed was never used as silver currency, but was entirely a distinct coinage. Occasional depravations of silver had taken place long before, as Pliny tells us that Mark Antony mixed iron with his silver denarii; and Mr Pinkerton informs us that he had seen a denarius of Antony which was attracted by a magnet.

The ancient brass coins consist of two kinds; the red or Cyprian, which indeed is no other than copper; and the common yellow brass. Our author observes that, in the Roman coinage, brass was of double the value of copper, and he is of opinion that it was the same amongst the Greeks; but the latter is the metal most commonly made use of in the Greek coinage. The Roman sertertii were always of brass, the middling-sized kind are partly copper and partly brass; the former being double the value of the latter, which are the asses.

Mr Pinkerton next proceeds to give an account of the mixed metals used amongst the Romans. In Britain, all kinds of coins made of mixed metal are without hesitation alleged to be forgeries; although it is certain that the variety of mixed metals used in coinage was very considerable. The most valuable mixture was that of gold and silver, already mentioned under the name of electrum ; the silver commonly amounting to one fifth part of the gold made use of, or perhaps more. Of this mixture are many of the early coins of Lydia, and some other Asiatic states; also those of the kings of the Bosphorus Cimmerius during the imperial ages of Rome. Next to the electrum were the coins of Corinthian brass; but Mr Pinkerton informs us that not a single coin was ever struck of this metal by the ancients, it having been constantly employed only in the fabrication of vases or toys. It was in use, at any rate, only for a very short time, being altogether unknown in the days of Pliny the Elder. This author therefore ridicules those who pretend not only to find out imperial coins of this metal, but to discover three kinds of it, viz. one in which the gold predominates, another in which the silver prevails, and a third where the brass is most conspicuous. He gives Aeneas Vico one of the most ancient writers on medals, as the author of this idea, but whose opinions were confuted by one Savot, a writer in the seventeenth century. Vicomentions a coin of this kind struck under Augustus, another of Livia, and a third of Claudius. The mistake, he is of opinion, arose from the circumstance of the first propagator not being able to account for the various mixtures and modifications of brass observable in ancient coins of the large size, and which in so common a metal appear very odd to the moderns. Besides the authority of Pliny and other antiquaries of a more modern date, who all declare that they never saw a single medal of Corinthian brass, or of that metal mixed with silver and gold, Pinkerton produces another evidence, which he looks upon as superior to either, viz. that those who have given in to this supposition imagine that the large pieces called sertertii, and others called dupondiarii, worth about twopence or a penny, are said to have been composed of this precious metal. But it is unreasonable to think that any portion of gold or silver could have been made use of in these. The coins said to have been struck upon Corinthian brass are only done upon a modification of common brass, in regard to which we know, that in proportion to the quantity of zinc made use of in conjunction with the copper, the metal assumes a variety of hues. On the authority of Pliny, he informs us that the coins mistaken for Corinthian brass were no other than prince’s metal.

The Egyptian silver coins struck under the Roman emperors are at first of tolerably pure silver, but afterwards degenerate into a mixture of copper and tin with a little silver. They are very thick, but many of them are elegantly struck, with uncommon reverses. There are likewise three sets of brass coins belonging to this country from the earliest times of the Roman emperors. Some of these are of bellmetal or pot-metal; but after the time of Gallienus and Valerian, the coinage of brass with a small addition of silver became authorized by the state, the coins struck upon it being called denarii acrei. Those of lead or copper plated with silver have been fabricated by Roman forgers. Some coins of lead, however, have been met with of undoubted antiquity; and an ancient writer informs us that tin money was coined by Dionysius; but none has been found. The lead coins of Tigranes, king of Armenia, mentioned as genuine by Jobert, are accounted forgeries by Mr Pinkerton and other modern medallists. Plautus, however, makes mention of leaden coins, and several of them have been found; but Pinkerton looks upon them as having been chiefly essay pieces, struck in order to let the artist judge of the progress of the die. Others are the plated kind already mentioned, fabricated by ancient forgers, but having the plating worn off. A great number of leaden coins are mentioned by Fricoini, in a work entitled Piombi Antichi, in which he supposes them to have served as tickets for guests; and coins of the same kind are also mentioned by Passeri. In the work entitled Notitia Imperii Fomani, there is mention made of coins of leather; but none of them has ever been found.

V.— Of Ancient Money.

In considering the different sizes, values, &c. of the Greek and Roman coins, Mr Pinkerton treats of the medals as money; a knowledge of which, he says, is essentially necessary to every reader of the classics, insomuch that it may almost dispute the preference with the studies of ancient geography and chronology. Notwithstanding all that has been written upon the subject, however, the same writer is of opinion that the science is still in its infancy, in as far as it relates to the real money of the ancients. “The ideal,” says he, “which is indeed the most important province of discussion, has been pretty clearly ascertained; and we are almost as well acquainted with the Attic mna or mina, and the perplexing progress of the Roman sestertia, as with our own pounds. But with the actual coin of the ancients the case is different; and the ignorance of the learned even in this point is wonderful.”

He then proceeds, with very great asperity of language, to particularize the ignorant manner in which modern authors have treated the subject of medals. “Arbuthnot and Clarke,” says he, “are, if possible, more ignorant of medals than Budaeus, the very first. The latter professes his love of medals, but quotes a consular coin with the head of Cicero; and looks upon one of the thirty pieces of silver, the reward of the treachery of Judas, and which was said to be preserved among some relics at Paris, to be worthy of reference and commemoration. Arbuthnot, if we may judge from his book, had never seen any ancient coins; [7:14:468]and Clarke, it is well known, was quite ignorant of them. The latter, with all his labour, seems even to have known nothing of the theoretic part of the real ancient money. Indeed, Dr Mead’s catalogue seems to have been almost the only book on medals which had undergone his perusal. On the other hand, the ignorance of medallists on this score is no less profound. To this day they look upon the didrachms of Aegina, so celebrated in antiquity, as tridrachms of Aegium; and upon the early obolus as a brass coin. In the Roman class the large brass is esteemed the as, while it shall be proved that it is the sestertius, and worth four asses. The denarius is reckoned at ten asses, even in the imperial times, whereas it only went at that rate for the first ninety years after the coinage of silver at Rome. The denarius acreus is taken for silver currency; with' other mistakes, which evince that medallists are as ignorant of the theory as the others are of the practice.”

In his account of the ancient Greek money, Mr Pinkerton observes, that the light of science, like that of the sun, has proceeded from the east to the west. “It is most probable,” says he, “that the first invention of money arose like the other arts and sciences, and spread from thence into the western parts of the world. In its first shape it appeared as mere pieces of metal, without any stated form or impression, in lieu of which it was regulated by weight. Even down to the Saxon government in England, large sums were regulated by weight; and in our own times every single piece is weighed in gold; though with regard to silver this nicety is not minded, nor indeed does it seem practicable. Amongst the ancients, whose commercial transactions were less important and extensive than those of the moderns, silver was weighed as well as gold; nay even brass in some cases.”

In Greece, small sums were determined by mnae or minae, and large sums by talents. In every country the mina is supposed to have contained a hundred drachmae or small silver coins of that country, and the talent sixty minae. The mina is supposed to be a pound weight of the country to which it belonged. The Attic pound, according to Dr Arbuthnot, contained sixteen ounces, equal to our avoirdupois pound; but Mr Pinkerton looks upon this as a very absurd opinion, and accuses the doctor of having adopted it merely that he might explain a passage in Livy. He is of opinion that the Attic pound is very nearly the same with the pound Troy. The mina of Athens had at first only seventy-three drachms; but by Solon it was fixed at a hundred. The ancient drachm weighed the same which it does at present in medical weight, viz. the eighth part of an ounce. The mina or pound of twelve ounces had consequently ninety-six of these drachms; but four of them were given to the round sum to supply defects in the alloy, in consequence of a practice common in all ages and in all countries, of giving some addition to a large weight. Thus the pound in weight had but ninety-six drachmae in fact, whilst the pound in tale had a hundred; as the Roman libra in weight had but eighty-four denarii, in tale a hundred and eight; and as our pound in tale, by an inverse progress, is not a third of our pound in common weight.

Notwithstanding the severe criticism on Dr Arbuthnot just mentioned, however, we find Pinkerton adopting his account of the talents used in coinage in several countries. Thus, according to the doctor,

The Syrian talent contained 15 Attic minae.

Ptolemaic

Antiochian GO

Euboean

Babylonian 70

Larger Attic 80

Tyrian 80

Egyptian 80

The Aeginean 100 Attic minae.

Rhodian 100

Notwithstanding the concession made here by Mr Pinkerton to the doctor, he tells us that he very much questions this list of talents, and that many ancient writers are little to be relied upon. Writers on this subject confess that the numbers in all ancient manuscripts are the parts most subject to error, as being almost always contracted. They ought to allow that the authors themselves must often be liable to wrong information.

“Herodotus mentions that King Darius ordered gold to be paid into his treasury by the Euboic talent, and silver by the Babylonian. The Euboic is esteemed the same with that called afterwards the Attic; and as we estimate gold by carats, so it is natural to suppose that the most precious metal would be regulated by the most minute weight. But I confess I take the Babylonie talent to be the same with that of Aegina. Mr Raper has proved the first coins of Macedon to be upon the standard of Aegina. Now the early Persian coins are upon that very scale, the largest tetradrachms weighing from 430 to 440 grains. Hence it follows that the Persian silver coins were of the Aeginean standard, and the payment was certainly to be made according to the standard of the money. The larger Attic talent was of 80 lesser minae, because the larger Attic mina was of 16 ounces. The Alexandrian talent, according to Festus, consisted of 12,000 denarii, being the same with that used by the Egyptian kings in their coins; and it is shown by Mr Raper to have been the same with the talent of Aegina. Perhaps the whole of the ancient coins of Asia, Africa, Greece, Magna Graecia, and Sicily, are reducible to three talents or standards: 1. That of Aegina, used in most of the more ancient silver coinages, as would seem in even the later of Egypt, Carthage, Cyrene, &c.; 2. the Attic (being the Asiatic gold standard, afterwards used by Phidon king of Argos in estimating gold, and called Euboic from Euboea, one of the quarters of the city of Argos), used in Athens and the greater part of the world as the standard both of gold and silver; 3. the Doric or Sicilian talent of twenty-four nummi, each worth an obolus and a half, whence the talent is estimated at six Attic drachms, or three darics. These weights continued to be the standard of money after it began to be distinguished by impression; nay, until the fall of Greece and prevalence of the Roman empire.” Thus far Mr Pinkerton.

Coinage, according to Herodotus, was first invented by the Lydians, from whom the Greeks quickly received it. The former could not have received it from the Persians, whose empire did not begin till 570 b. c. , though our author supposes that it might have proceeded from the Syrians, who carried on commerce in very ancient times. The most ancient Greek coins of silver have an indented mark upon one side, and a tortoise upon the other; and those of the greatest antiquity have no letters upon them. Those of later date have AIΓI marked upon them, which medallists interpret of Aegium in Achaia; being led into that supposition by the tortoise, which they look upon as a sure mark of the Peloponnesus. But though Pinkerton agrees that the tortoise was so, he thinks that they are otherwise very far wrong in their conclusions. Aegium in Achaia was a place of no consequence till the times of Aratus and the Achaean league; but there are eleven of these coins in Dr Hunter’s cabinet which show that they must have been struck in times of the most remote antiquity, and that the place where they were struck was rich and flourishing at the time. The coins we speak of are not common; but those which have the name AIΓEI∩N at full length, and which may perhaps belong to Aegium in Achaia, are extremely scarce; insomuch that in all Dr Hunter’s vast collection there are not above one or two. They are likewise constructed upon a scale quite different [7:14:469]from all other Grecian money, being of 8,13, 15½, 90, and about 186 grains. The Grecian drachma at an average is 66 grains; and Mr Pinkerton thinks it would have been strange if pieces had been struck of eight tenths of an obolus, of an obolus and a half, or of a drachma and a half. Aegium being originally an obscure village, could not be the first which coined money; so that Mr Pinkerton supposes the name AIΓI to have stood for Aegialus, the ancient name of Sicyon, a wealthy and powerful city; or rather Aegina, the mint of which was much celebrated, and perhaps the most ancient in Greece.

Other arguments in favour of these coins being derived from Aegina, are drawn from their weight as well as their workmanship, which are quite different from those bearing the name of Aegium at full length. The coinage of Aegina is known to have been different from that of the rest of Greece; insomuch that its drachma was worth ten Attic oboli, whilst the Attic drachma was valued only at six. Hence the drachmas of Aegina were named by the Greeks πακsιαι, or thick ; a name very applicable to the coins in question. From these observations, Pinkerton is of opinion that we may even distinguish the precise weight of the ancient coins of Aegina. According to the exact proportion, the drachma of this place should weigh exactly a hundred grains; and one of them very much rubbed weighed above ninety. The others of larger size, which seem to be didrachms of Aegina, weigh from a hundred and eighty-one to a hundred and ninety-four grains; but the latter being the only one he could meet with in good preservation, it was impossible to form any just medium. Even in those which are best preserved, he thinks that ten grains maybe allowed for a waste of the metal in so long a time as 2400 years, which would bring the drachma of Aegina near its proper standard. The obolus of Aegina was in proportion to its drachma of six oboli. It is the piece of fifteen and a half grains, and thirteen when very much rubbed. The hemiobolion is that of eight, but when rubbed it falls short of this weight.

The general denomination of the Greek money is the drachma, or eighth part of an ounce, which to this day is retained in the medical weights; the Grecian coins receiving the names they bore from their weights, though in some instances the weights received their appellations from the coins. The silver drachma, according to Mr Pinkerton, was about ninepeuce sterling; and he finds fault with those who make the drachma and denarius both equal to one another, the latter being no more than cightpence. The didrachm of silver, according to the same calculation, was worth 18d.; but the tridrachm occurs very rarely, and Mr Pinkerton is even of opinion that medallists give this name to the didrachm of Aegina. The largest of all the Grecian coins is the tetradrachm, which on the Aeginean standard is worth five shillings, but in those of the other states only four. There arc, however, many subdivisions in the silver drachma, the highest of which is the tetraobolion or coin of four oboli; being in proportion to the drachma as our groat to a sixpence, weighing about forty-four grains, and being in value about sixpence. The hemidrachm or triobolion comes next in value, weighing about thirty-three grains, and worth fourpence halfpenny. The silver dioholion, or third of the drachma, weighs about twenty-two grains, and is worth threepence. The obolus of silver weighs about eleven grains, and is worth only three halfpence. There is likewise a hemiobolion in silver, or half the obolus, of five grains and a half, value three farthings; and another called tetraobolicm dichalcos, or quarter obolus, which is the most minute coin yet met with, and, by. reason of its extreme smallness, weighing only two grains and a quarter, is now very scarce. There is one of these in the cabinet of Dr Hunter, and some more were brought from Athens by Mr Stuart. Several have been occasionally met with at Tarentum. It would appear, however, that there were some still smaller, and of value only three fourths of a farthing. None of these have been met with; and the smallness of the size renders it improbable that any will ever be met with, as the peasants, who commonly discover coins, would probably either not observe them at all, or, if they did, would neglect them as things of no value.

Many different names have been imposed on the coins belonging to the different states of Greece. Thus κοgη, the maiden, was a name often applied to the tetradrachm, and which would seem to apply to those ofAthens; though there are coins of other cities with the head of Proserpine, and the word κο%η, to which it would appear more applicable in our author’s opinion. Xtaωνη, the shell, was the name of another coin, from its type. A Sicilian coin was named δεμαoετιον, from Gelon’s wife. A tetradrachm was named κζαπαταγους, and had eight ευ0ειας or hemidrachms. The Υζοισηνιον, so called from its country Troizene, had Pallas on one side and a trident on the reverse. The hemiobolion was the τtεKανοζ of Lacedaemon; and the κoλλuCoς is supposed to have been equal to the Roman sestertius or quarter drachma. The cystophori were coins with the mystic chest or hamper of Bacchus upon them, out of which a serpent rises; they were much celebrated in antiquity. We are told by Livy, that Marcus Acilius, in his triumph over Antiochus and the Aetolians,carried off 248,000 of them; that Cneius Manlius Vulso, in that over Gallo-Graecia, had 250,000; and that Lucius Emilius Regillus, in his naval triumph over the fleets of Antiochus, had 131,300. Cicero likewise mentions his being possessed of a vast sum in them. The most probable opinion concerning them seems to be, that they were all silver tetradrachms, such as belonged to the cities of Apamea and Laodicea in Phrygia, Pergamus in Mysia, Sardis and Tralles in Lydia, and Ephesus; but it is a mistake to ascribe any to Crete. Mr Pinkerton thinks it absurd to imagine that Crete, a small island, should strike such vast numbers of coins, though Cicero mentions his being in possession of an immense treasure in them at the time when he was governor of Asia Minor. “It is most likely,” says Mr Pinkerton, “chat his wealth should be in the coin of the country to which he belonged. What had these triumphs of Cicero’s government to’do with Cretan money? But indeed the coins themselves, as above noticed, establish the fact.”

Another set of coins famous in antiquity were those of Cyzicus in Mysia, which were of gold; but they have now almost entirely vanished, by being recoined in other forms. The 'A,^ιανδικον νομισμα, or money of Aryandes, who was made governor of Egypt by Cambyses, is mentioned by Hesychius; but none of them, as far as is known, have reached our times. They must have been marked wnth Persian characters, if with any. The coin of Queen Phi-listis is mentioned by the same writer, and many of these pieces are still extant; but we know not where this queen reigned, nor does there seem to be any method of finding it out. Mr Pinkerton inclines to believe that she presided over Sicily; and, as a confirmation of that supposition, mentions some inscriptions of ΒΑΣΙΛΙΣΣΑΣ ΦIΛIΣTIΔOΣ on the gradini of the thqatre at Syracuse, but which appear not older than the Roman times. Some authors are of opinion that she reigned in Cossara or Malta, and this is considered as much more improbable.

The most particular attention with regard to the names and standard of coins is due to those of Athens, and it is remarkable that most of them which have reached us are of a very late period, with the names of magistrates inscribed upon them. Some of these bear the name of Mithridates, and few are older than the era of that prince, who, it is well known, took the city of Athens in his war with the Romans. “I suspect,” says Mr Pinkerton, “that [7:14:470]no Athenian coins of silver are posterior to Sylla’s infamous destruction of that city; an event the more remarkable, as Sallust tell us that Sylla was learned in Greek.” Indeed Caligula, Nero, and most of the pests of society, were learned men, in spite of a well-known axiom of Ovid. It is still more remarkable that the fabric of Athenian coins is almost universally very rude; a singular circumstance, if we reflect how much the arts flourished there. It can only be accounted for from the excellence of their artists being such as to occasion all the good ones to be called into other countries, and none but the bad left at home. In like manner, the coins struck at Rome in the imperial times are excellent, as being done by the best Greek artists; whilst those of Greece, though famous at that time for producing unrivalled artists, are during that period commonly of very mean execution. The opulence of Athens in her days of glory was very great, owing in an eminent degree to her rich commerce with the kingdoms on the Euxine Sea, carried on chiefly from Delos, which belonged to Athens, and was the grand centre of that trade. Hence it has become matter of surprise to Neumann, that when there are so many coins of Mycene, an island even proverbially poor, there should be none of Delos. But Mr Pinkerton accounts for this from Mycene being a free state, and Delos subject to Athens. “It may be well supposed,” says he, “that Athens had a mint at Delos; and such Athenian coins as have symbols of Apollo, Diana, or Latona, were struck in this island.”

The copper money of the Greeks is next in antiquity to the silver. Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that it was not used at Athens till the 26th year of the Peloponnesian war; about 404 years before Christ, and 300 after silver was first coined there. The first copper coins were those of Gelo of Syracuse, about 490 b. c. The chalcos of brass, of which eight went to the silver obolus, seems to have been the first kind of Greek coin. At first it was looked upon as of so little consequence, that it became proverbial; and to say that a thing was not worth a chalcos, was equivalent to saying that it was worth nothing. As the Greeks became poor, however, even this diminutive coin was subdivided into two, four, nay eight λππτα or small coins; but Pinkerton censures very severely those who have given an account of those divisions. “Pollux, and Suidas copying from him,” says he, “tell us that there were seven lepta to one chalcos; a number the most unlikely that can be, from its indivisibility and incapacity of proportion. Pollux lived in the time of Commodus, so was too late to be of the smallest authority; Suidas is four or five centuries later, and out of the question. Pliny tells us that there were ten chalci to the obolus, Diodorus and Cleopatra that there were six, Isidorus says there were four; and if such writers differ about the larger denomination, we may well imagine that the smaller equally varied in different states; an idea supported by these undeniable witnesses, the coins which remain. Most of the Greek copper coin which has reached our times consists of chaici, the lepta being so small as to be much more liable to be lost.” In Dr Hunter’s cabinet, however, there are several of the dilepta of Athens, and, from being stamped with the representation of two owls, seem to be the same with the silver diobolus; “a circumstance,” says Mr Pinkerton, “of itself sufficient to confute Pollux; for a dilepton can form no part of seven, a number indeed which never appeared in any coinage of the same metals, and is contradictory to common sense. It may be observed, that the whole brass coins of Athens published by Dr Combe are reducible to four sizes, which may be the lepton, dilepton, tetralepton or hemichalcos, and chalcos. The first is not above the size of one of King James I.’s farthing tokens, the last about that of our common farthing.” The lepta was also called ϰ ε ϑ μα, as being change for the poor. The ϰ ιδαφος, perhaps so called from the figure of a wolf upon it, was the coin of a particular state, and, if of brass, must have weighed three chalci. The other names of the copper coins of Greece are but little known. Lycurgus ordered iron money to be coined at Sparta; but so perishable is this metal that none of that kind of money has reached our times.

After the conquest of Greece by the Romans, most of the coins of that country diminished very much in their value, the gold coinage being totally discontinued, though some of the barbarous kings who used the Greek character were permitted to coin gold; but they used the Roman model; and the standard used by the few cities in Asia who spoke the Greek language in the times of the emperors is entirely unknown. Copper seems to have been the only metal coined at that time by the Greeks themselves; and that was done upon the Roman standard, then universal through the empire, that there might be no impediment to the circulation of currency. They retained, however, some of their own terms, using them along with those of the Romans. The assarion or assarium of Rome, the name of the diminished as, being sixteen to the drachma or denarius, the obolus was so much diminished in value as to be struck in brass not much larger than the old chalcos, and valued at between two and three assaria, which was indeed its ahcientrate as to the drachma. This appears from the copper coins of Chios, which have their names marked upon them. The brass obo!us, at first equal in size to the Roman sestertius or large brass, lessens by degrees to about the size of a silver drachma. From the badness of the imperial coinage in Greece, also, it appears that brass was very scarce in that country, as well as in all the cities using the Greek characters, being found mostly in the western countries of the Roman empire. The time of this declension in size of the Greek coins is by Mr Pinkerton supposed to have been from Augustus down to Gallienus. He is of opinion, however, that the copper obolus, at first above the size of large brass, was used in Greece about the time of its first subjection to Rome; and that the lepta ceasing, the chalci came in their stead, with the dichalcus and the hemiobolion of brass.

With respect to the gold coins of the Greeks, Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that none of that metal were coined before the time of Philip of Macedon, as none have reached our times prior to the reign of that monarch. From a passage in Thucydides, our author concludes that, in the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, the Athenians had no gold coin. Speaking of the treasure in the Acropolis or citadel of Athens, at the commencement of that war, the historian mentions silver coin, and gold and silver in bullion; and had any of the gold been in coin, he would certainly have mentioned it. Philip began his reign about sixty-eight years after the beginning of the Peloponnesian war; and we can scarcely suppose that any city would have preceded the elegant and wealthy Athens in coining gold.

Notwithstanding, however, this deficiency of gold coin amongst the Greeks, it is certain that the coinage of gold had taken place in Sicily long before; as we have gold coins of Gelo about 491 b. c., of Hiero I. 478, and of Dionysius I. in 404, all using the Greek characters, though not to be ranked amongst the gold coins of Greece, as Philip caused his to be. Gold coins of Syracuse even appear of the third class of antiquity, or with an indented square, and a small figure in one of its segments. Gold coins were used in the cities of Brettium, Tarentum, and throughout Magna Graecia; also in Panticapaea in Thrace, and likewise Cosa in that country; but not in Tuscany, as is commonly believed, though Neumann proves that they were struck by Brutus, and are unquestionably as ancient as the Greek coins. The Thebans and Athenians probably coined the first gold after Philip had set them the example, and when they were attempting to resist the projects[7:14:471] of that enterprising monarch. The Aetolians probably coined their gold during the time of their greatest power, about a century after Philip, and when they were combating the power of Aratus and the Achaean league. There is only one ημιχουσος of Thebes, much worn, in Dr Hunter’s cabinet, and weighing fifty-nine grains; and perhaps not above two or three χζpσοι or gold didrachms of Athens in the world, one of which is also in the collection of Dr Hunter, and weighs 132⅜ grains. It appears to be more modern than the reign of Philip. That monarch having got possession of the mines of Philippi in Thrace, improved them so much that they produced him annually above a thousand talents of gold, or L.2,880,000 of our money. From this gold were struck the first coins, named from the monarch, Philippi. They were marked with his portrait, and for many ages afterwards were so numerous that they were common in the Roman empire; whence the name Philippi became at length common to gold, silver, and at last even to brass coins of their size. In the time of Philip, gold was very scarce in Greece; but after the Phocians had plundered the temple of Delphi, this precious metal, which had been valued as gems, and consecrated only to the decoration of the temples of the gods, began to be known amongst the Greeks. The comparative value of gold and silver, however, seems to have been at that time very different from what it is now. Herodotus values gold at thirteen times its weight in silver; Plato, in his Hipparchus, at twelve; and even the low value of ten to one seems to have been the stated estimation in Greece, though in Rome the plenty of silver from the Spanish mines made the value of gold to be much higher; and there is no reason to think that it was ever valued in that city at less than twelve times its weight in silver. The Philippus, χξυσoς, gold piece, or stater, is a didrachm, and is the most common of all the ancient coins. Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that it went for twenty silver drachms on its first appearance, but in later times for twenty-five Greek drachmae or Roman denarii. There are proofs of the Philippi being didrachms, both from the writings of ancient authors and from numbers of the coins themselves, which remain to this day; and that the χξpσος, or principal gold coin of Greece, was of the same weight, is also evident from ancient writings. It was anciently worth about 15s.; but, valuing gold now at the medium price of L.4 per ounce, it is worth about 20s. The ημιχζμσος, or half the former coin, scarcely occurs of the coinage of Philip and Alexander, though it does of Hiero I. of Syracuse and of King Pyrrhus. It passed for ten silver drachmas, and was valued only at 7s. 6d. though now worth 10s. Another division of this kind might be worth about 5s. There were besides some lesser divisions of gold coins, which could not be worth above two drachmas. These were coined in Cyrene; and there were besides several old gold coins of Asia Minor, the value of which is now unknown. Mr Pinkerton supposes that they were coined not with relation to their weight as parts of the drachma, but merely to make them correspond with as many silver pieces as were necessary. There are also larger coins than the χζoσος, the διχζυσος of Alexander and Lysimachus being double its value. Some others are met with of Lysimachus, Antiochus III. and some of the Egyptian monarchs, weighing four times the χξpσος, and now worth about L.4 sterling. Some weigh even more; but this is supposed to be owing to a difference in the purity of the gold.

In Rome, as well a - s in Greece, the money was at first estimated by weight; and the first metal coined by that people was copper, silver being long unknown in Rome; nor is it certainly known that any silver has ever been found in the Italian mines. In Rome the first valuation of money was by the libra gravis aeris, or pound of heavy brass; and in the progress of their conquests, the little sil ver and gold that came in their way was regulated by the same standard, as appears from the story of Brennus. The weights made use of were the same with those which continue to this day. The pound consisted of twelve ounces, of 458 grains each; but the pound by which the money was weighed appears to have consisted only of 420 grains to the ounce, or to have contained in all 5040 grains. This became the standard of copper; and when silver came to be coined, seven denarii went to the ounce, as eight drachms did in Greece. Gold was regulated by the scriptulum or scrupulum, the third part of a denarius, and by the larger weights just mentioned. The number ten was at first used by the Romans in counting their money; but finding afterwards that a smaller number was more convenient, they divided it into quarters; and as the quarter of ten is two and a half, they for this reason bestowed upon it the name of sestertius, or “half the third,” to express that it was two of any weights, measures, &c. and half a third; whence the sestertius came at last to be the grand estimate of Roman money. The as being at first the largest, and indeed the only Roman coin, the word sestertius means sestertius as, or “two asses and a half.” On the first coining of silver, the denarius of ten asses was struck in the most common and convenient denary division of money, or that by tens, the sestertius being of course two asses and a half. But the denarius being afterwards estimated at sixteen asses, the name sestertius was still applied to a quarter of the denarius, though it now contained four asses. The term sestertius was applied to all sums not exceeding 1000 sestertii, or L.8.6s. 8d.; but for greater sums the mode of the sestertius was likewise altered, though not to exclude the former. Very large sums of money were estimated by the hundredweight of brass; for the Romans were at first unacquainted with the talent. The hundredweight, by way of eminence, was distinguished by the name of pondus, and sestertium pondus became a phrase for two hundredweight and a half. Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that we may value the as libralis of ancient Rome at about eightpence English. Estimating the as, therefore, at a pound weight, the sestertium pondus was equal to one thousand sestertii, or L.8. 6s. 8d.; and by a coincidence, which our author supposes to have been the effect of design, as soon as the silver coinage appeared, the sestertium centum denariorum was always equal to L.8. 6s. 8d. also. The word sestertium itself, however, seems to have been unknown prior to the coinage of silver money at Rome; the pondera gravis aeris being sufficient before that time for all the purposes of a state in which money was so scarce. But, however this may be, the pondus or hundredweight of brass was precisely worth a hundred denarii, or a pound of silver. As the great sestertium was always valued at a thousand of the smaller, or L.8. 6s. 8d., we never find one sestertium mentioned in authors, but two, three, or more; ten thousand of them being equal to L.83,333. 6s. 8d.

The states from which the Romans may be supposed first to have derived their coinage were the Etruscans and the Greek colonies in Magna Graecia and Sicily. Joseph Scaliger, Gronovius, and others, contend that it was from the Sicilians that the Romans first derived their knowledge of money; but Mr Pinkerton argues that it was from the Etruscans. In confirmation of his opinion, he appeals to the state of the Roman territories in the time of Servius Tullius, who is looked upon as having been the first who coined money at Rome. At that time the whole Roman dominion did not extend beyond ten miles round the city, and was entirely surrounded by the Etruscan and Latin states; Cumae, the next Greek colony which was of any consequence, being situated in the neighbourhood of Naples, at about the distance of 150 miles. Mr Pinkerton asks if it is reasonable to think that the Romans [7:14:472]received the use of money from the Etruscans and Latins, who were their neighbours, or from the Greeks, who were at a distance, and at that time, as far as appears from their history, absolutely unknown to them. “If this ar gument, “adds he,” is strong with regard to the nearest Grecian colonies, what must it be with respect to Sicily, an island 300 miles distant from Rome, where it was not known, at that time, if a boat went by land or water ?” Arguments, however, for this opinion have been derived from the similarity between the Sicilian and Roman coins, which Mr Pinkerton next proceeds to examine. The Greek pound in Sicily was called λ∕τgα, and consisted, like the Roman, of twelve oυγκιαι or ounces; and Mr Pinkerton grants that the Roman libra was derived from the Greek ^λιτgα, but denies that the as, or libra, a coin, was from a Sicilian model. The Sicilians had indeed a coin named λ∕rga, but it was of silver, and of equal value to the Aeginean standard, ten of which went to the Sicilian δεκαkιτgχ. He differs from Gronovius, that the standard of Aegina was used at Corinth, and of course at Syracuse; and it appears from Aristotle, that the Sicilians had a talent or standard of their own. The Sicilian obolus or ∖ ιτgα contained also twelve ounces or chalci, so named at first because they weighed an ounce weight; but the ουγκιαι of Hiero weighed more than a troy ounce; and the brass coins of Agrigentum are marked with ciphers as far as six, the largest weighing only 186 grains, or about one third of the primitive ounce. Pinkerton denies that even the Roman denarΛιs took its rise from the Sicilian δεκα ∖ ιτgον, as many authors assert. Were this the case, it would have weighed 180 grains; whereas the Roman denarii are not above the third part of the quantity.

From all these considerations, Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that the Sicilians borrowed the division of their ^Kιτgα from the Etruscans, or possibly from the Romans themselves; which, he seems to think, is more probable than that the Romans had it from Sicily. The strongest argument, however, against the Roman coinage being borrowed from the Sicilian is, that though great numbers of Sicilian coins are to be found in the cabinets of medallists, yet none of them resembles in any degree the as libralis of the Romans. In most cabinets also there are Etruscan coins upon the exact scale of the as libralis, and several of its divisions; whence Mr Pinkerton has concluded, that “these, and these alone, must have afforded a pattern to the primitive Reman coinage.” The Etruscans were a colony from Lydia, to which country Herodotus ascribes the first invention of coinage. “Those colonists,” says Mr Pinkerton, “upon looking round their settlements, and finding that no silver was to be had, and much less gold,” supplied the mercantile medium with copper; to which the case of Sweden is very similar, which, as late as the last century, had copper coins of such magnitude that wheelbarrows were used to carry off a sum not very considerable.”

Some coins arc found which exceed the as libralis in weight, and these are supposed to be prior to the time of Servius Tullius. Some of them are met with of thirty-four and fifty-three Roman ounces, having upon one side the figure of a bull rudely impressed, and upon the other the bones of a fish. They are most commonly found at Tudder, or Tudertum, in Umbria; but they appear always broken at one end, and hence Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that perhaps some might have been struck of the decussis form, or weighing ten pounds. These pieces would seem to make it evident, that the Romans derived their large brass coins from the Etruscans and neighbouring states; they arc all cast in moulds, and the greater part of them appear much more ancient than the Roman asses, even such as are of the greatest antiquity.

Mr Pinkerton agrees with Sir Isaac Newton as to the time that Servius Tullius reigned in Rome, which he supposes to be about 460 before Christ. His coinage seems to have been confined to the as, or piece of brass having the impression of Janus on the one side and the prow of a ship on the other, because Janus arrived in Italy by sea. Varro, however, informs us, that the very first coins of Tullius had the figure of a bull or other cattle upon them, like the Etruscan coins, of which they were imitations. Those with the figure of Janus and the prow of a ship upon them may be supposed to have first appeared about 400 before Christ; but in a short time various subdivisions of the as were coined , . The semis, or half, is commonly stamped with the head of Jupiter laureated; the triens, or third, having four ciphers, as being originally of four ounces weight, has the head of Minerva; the quadrans, or quarter, marked with three ciphers, has the head of Hercules wrapt in the lion’s skin; the sextans, or sixth, having only two ciphers, is marked with the head of Mercury, with a cap and wings; whilst the uncia, having only one cipher, is marked with the head of Rome. All these coins appear to have been cast in moulds, by a considerable number at a time; and in the British Museum there are four of them all united together as taken out of the mould, in which perhaps dozens were cast together. In process of time, however, the smaller divisions were struck instead of being cast; but the larger still continued to be cast until the as fell to two ounces. Even after this time it was still called libra, and accounted a pound of copper, though there were now larger denominations of it coined, such as the bissas or double as; tressis and quadrιιssis, of three and four asses; nay, as far as decussis or ten asses, marked X. Olivieri mentions one in his own cabinetweighing upwards of twenty-five ounces, and cast when the as was about three ounces weight. There is likewise in the Museum Etruscum a decussis of forty Roman ounces, cast when the as was at four ounces. There was likewise a curious decussis in the Jesuits’ Library at Rome, for which an English medallist offered L.20, but it was seized by the Pope, along with every other thing belonging to the society.

Mr Pinkerton contests the opinion of Pliny, that the as continued of a pound weight till the end of the first Punic war. This opinion, he says, is confuted by the coins which still remain, and it appears probable to him that the as decreased gradually in weight; and from one or two of the pieces which still exist, he seems to think that the decrease was slow, as from a pound to eleven ounces, then to ten, nine, &c.; but neither the as nor its parts were ever correctly sized. During the time of the second Punic war, when the Romans were sorely pressed by Hannibal, the as was reduced to a single ounce. This is said to have taken place in the 215th year before our era, being about thirty-six years after the former change. The as libralis, with the faces of Janus upon it, is the form most commonly met with previously to its being reduced to two ounces. Mr Pinkerton supposes that the as libralis continued for at least a century and a half after this coinage of Tullius, down to 300 before Christ, about the year of Rome 452, between which and the 502d year of Rome a gradual diminution of the as to two ounces must have taken place. The following table of the dates of the Roman coinage is given by Mr Pinkerton. The as libralis, coined by Tullius, with the figures of oxen, &c. about 167 years after the building of Rome, according to Sir Isaac Newton, or about the year before Christ 460

As libralis with Janus and the prow of a ship 400

As of ten ounces 300

Eight 290

Six 280

Four 270

Three 260

Two, according to Pliny 250

One, according to the same author 214 [7:14:473]!. About 175 before Christ, also, we are informed by Pliny -^that the as was, by the Papyrian law, reduced to half an ounce, at which it continued till the time of Pliny himself, and long after.

After the Romans began to maintain an intercourse with Greece, a variety of elegant figures appear upon the parts of the as, though not on the as itself till after the time of Sylla-Towards the latter end of the republic, also, dupondii, or double asses, were coined, together with the sestertii acrei, which came in place of the quadrusses, when the denarius began to be reckoned at sixteen asses, probably at the time the latter was reduced to half an ounce. In some instances, it is to be observed that the Romans accommodated their coins to the country where their army was stationed; whence we have many coins marked as Roman, which had been coined in Magna Graecia and Sicily, and arc evidently upon the Greek and not the Roman scale. In the latter part of the republican times, also, the types begin to vary; so that we have a brass coin supposed to be struck by Sextus Pompeius in Sicily, having upon it a double head of that warrior, representing a Janus. Mr Pinkerton supposes it to have been a dupondius, which indeed appears to be the case, from the double head. This coin is of copper, and still weighs an ounce, notwithstanding its antiquity.

The largest imperial copper coin was the sestertius, a piece worth about twopence of our money. Mr Pinkerton censures severely the opinion of other medallists, all of whom allege that the sestertius was of silver. “In fact,” says he, “it would be as rational in any antiquary, a thousand years hence, to contend that the halfpenny and farthing are of silver, because they were so in the reign of Henry VIII.” In confirmation of his own opinion, he quotes the following passage from Pliny: “The greatest glory of brass is now-due to the Marian, called also that of Cordova. This, after the Livian, most absorbs the lapis calaminaris, and imitates the goodness of native orichalcum in our sestertii and dupondiarii, the asses being contented with their own copper.” Gronovius confessed that he did not know what to make of this passage, and that it caused him to hesitate in his opinion. The Liman mine here mentioned by Pliny is supposed to have got its name from Livia, the wife of Augustus; and it is probable that the pieces marked with her portraits, entitled Justitia, Salus, Virtus, were dupondii from this very mine, the metal being exceedingly fine, and of the kind named Corinthian brass by the ancient medallists. Perhaps the mine received its name from the circumstance of her coins being struck in the metal obtained from it.

No change took place in the Roman coinage, from the time that the as fell to half an ounce, to the days of Pliny; but Mr Pinkerton observes, that before the time of Julius Caesar, yellow brass began to be used, and was always looked upon as being double the value of Cyprian or red copper. There are but few coins in large brass immediately before Julius Caesar, or even belonging to that emperor; but from the time of Augustus downward, the large coins are all found of brass, and not one of them of copper. The largest of what are called the middle size are all of yellow brass; and the next size, which is the as, and weighs half an ounce, is universally copper. What the ancients named orichalcum, or what we call brass, was always looked upon as greatly superior in value to the aes Cyprium. Procopius, speaking of a statue of Justinian, tells us that brass inferior in colour to gold is almost equal in,value to silver. The mines of native brass were very few in number, and were owing entirely to the singular combination of copper and lapis calaminaris in the bowels of the earth, which very seldom occurs; and the ancients were very far from being well acquainted with the method of combining these two bodies artificially, so that yellow brass was always esteemed at double the value of copper; and hence, in the ancient coinages, the brass and copper pieces were kept as distinct as those of gold and silver.

Mr Pinkerton lays claim to the discovery that the imperial sestertius was of brass, and is at considerable pains to bring proofs of it. Besides the testimony of Pliny^ which of itself would be decisive, this is supported by the strongest collateral evidence of other authors. From a passage in Julius Africanus, who wrote the Tαrg∕κα, or Treatise on. Medicine, it appears that the nummus, or sestertius, weighed an ounce, and of consequence that it could not be silver, but brass; and all the large imperial Roman coins weigh an ounce. We know not the age in which Julius Africanus lived; and as he makes the denarius to contain sixteen asses, he must have been before the age of Gallienus, when it had sixty. Gronovius supposes him to have been the same mentioned by Eusebius. This author speaks of a Julius Africanus who lived in the time of Heliogabalus, and whom Mr Pinkerton supposes to have been the same with the person above mentioned.

The sestertius underwent no change till the time of Alexander Severus, when it was diminished by one third of its weight. Trajanus Decius was the first who coined double sestertii, or quinarii, of brass; but from the time of Trebonianus Gallus to that of Gallienus, when the first brass ceases, the sestertius does not weigh above the third part of an ounce. The larger coins are accounted double sestertii; and after the time of Gallienus it totally vanishes. In the times of Valerian and Gallienus we find a new kind of coinage, mentioned by the name of denarii aeris, or Philippi acrei. Two sizes of denarii began to be used in the time of Caracalla; the larger of six sestertii, or twenty-four assaria; the smaller of four sestertii, or sixteen assaria, as usual. In the time of Pupienus, the latter was reduced to such a small size as not to weigh more than thirty-six grains, though in Caracalla’s time it weighed fifty-six. After the time of Gcrdian III. the smaller coin fell into disuse, as breeding confusion. The larger denarius, of six sestertii, though diminished at last to the size of the early denarius, still retained its value of six sestertii, or twenty-four assaria. The Philippus aersus came at length in place of the sestertius. It was also called denarius, from which we may learn not only their size, but that they were in value ten assaria, as the first denarius. In the reign of Diocletian, the place of the sestertius was supplied by the follis, that emperor having restored the silver coin to its purity, and likewise given this form to the copper; but it would seem that this restoration of the coinage only took place towards the end of his reign; for which reason we have but few of his silver coins, and still fewer of Úiefollis, though the denarii acrei continue quite common down to the time of Constantine. The follis of Diocletian seems to have weighed above half an ounce; and Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that Diocletian designed this coin to supply the place of the denarius acreus, which of course was worth ten assaria, and six of them went to the silver denarius. From this time the assarium diminishes to the size of thirty grains; and soon after the follis appeared, the denarius acreus was entirely dropped, the former having gradually supplied its place. Some mints appear to have retained the use of the denarius longer than others; and in several the change was preceded, and gradually brought in, by washing the follis with silver or tin, as the denarius had formerly been. Pieces of this kind occur in the times of Diocletian, Maximian I. and II. and Constantius I.; that is, for about ten years after the follis made its appearance. Some countries, however, retained the denarius acreus, others the follis, and some had a medium between the two, or the follis washed in imitation of the denarius.

Towards the end of the reign of Constantine I. a new coinage was introduced throughout the whole empire. The [7:14:474]follis coined by this prince was of half an ounce weight; twenty-four of them going to the milliarensis, or larger silver coin. The word follis signifies also a purse, in which sense we sometimes find it mentioned in the Byzantine history. The common follis of silver, when it occurs by itself, means a purse of 250 milliarensis, as the sestertium was 250 denarii; and by a law of Constantine I. every man paid to the state a follis or purse according to his income. The method of counting by purses continues in Turkey to this day.

The dupondius was only half the value of the sestertius, or about one penny sterling; and before the yellow brass appeared it seems to have been struck upon copper, and double the size of the as. There are some of this coin, struck in the time of Julius Caesar, in yellow brass, weighing half an ounce, with a head of Venus Victrix upon one side; on the reverse, a female figure, with serpents at her feet; whilst others have a Victory on the reverse, with Q. Oppius Pr. After the time of Augustus, the dupondius was struck in yellow brass; which Pliny tells us was also the case in his time. The word dupondiarius seems to have been used by Pliny, and adopted, not to express that the coin was dupondius, but that it was of dupondiary value. Neither was the former word confined to signify double weight, but was used also for double length or measure, as in the instance of dupondius ρes, or two feet, &c. In the imperial times, therefore, dupondius was used, not to signify a coin of double the weight of the as, but of double the value. It was one of the most ordinary of the Roman coins, and seems to have been very common even in Constantinople. In the time of Justinian, it appears there was a custom of nicknaming young students of the law dupondii, against which the emperor made a law; but it is not known what gave rise to the name. The dupondius, though of the same size with the as, is commonly of finer workmanship, the metal being greatly superior in value. It continues to be of yellow brass, as well as the sestertius, till the time of Gallienus; but the as is always in copper.

The imperial as, or assarium, was worth only a halfpenny. At first it weighed half an ounce, and was always of copper till the time of Gallienus, when it was made of brass, and weighed only the eighth part of an ounce. From the time of Gallienus to that of Diocletian, it continued to diminish still more, the size being then twenty to an ounce. This was the same with the lepta, or smallest coins except the νουμια, which weighed only ten grains.

The parts of the as occur but seldom, which may indeed be expected, considering the low value of it; though there still occur some of those called semis, triens, quadrans, sextans, and uncia, coined in the times of Nero and Domitian. There is no small brass from the time of Pertinax to that of Gallienus, excepting that of Trajanus Decius; but in the time of Gallienus it becomes extremely common, and the coins of small brass, as well as the larger, are always marked S. C., such as want it being universally accounted forgeries; they were plated with silver, though the plating be now worn off. The small pieces struck for slaves during the time of the saturnalia, must also be distinguished from the parts of the as. The S. C. upon these most probably signifies Saturni Consulto, and were struck in ridicule of the true coins, as the slaves on that occasion had every privilege of irony.

The sestertius diminishes from Pertinax to Gallienus so fast that no parts of the as are struck, itself being so small. Trajanus Decius, indeed, coined some small pieces, which went for the semis of the time. The small brass coins under Gallienus were called assaria, sixty of which went to the silver denarius. They are about the size of the denarius, and some of them occur of the coinage of Gallus and his family, of half that size, which appear to have been struck during the latter part of his reign, when the assarium was diminished to a still smaller size. It is probable, however, that some of these very small coins had been struck in all ages of the empire, in order to scatter amongst the people on solemn occasions. Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that they are the missilia, though most other medallists think that they are medallions. “But if so,” says he, “they were certainly called missilia a non mittendo ; for it would be odd if fine medallions were scattered among the mob. It is a common custom just now to strike counters to scatter among the populace on such occasions, while medals are given to peers of the kingdom; and we may very justly reason from analogy on this occasion.”

The assarion or lepton of the Constan tinopolitan empire was, as we have already observed, one of the smallest coins known in antiquity, weighing no more than twenty grains; and the nowmia were the very smallest which have reached our times, being only one half of the former. By reason of their extreme smallness, they are very scarce; but Mr Pinkerton had in his possession a fine one of Theodosius II. which had on it the emperor’s head in profile: Theodosius P. F. AV.; on the reverse a wreath, having in the centre voτ. xx.: mult. xxx.

The principal coin of the lower empire was the follis, which was divided into an half and quarter, named ημισο-φο ∖ εος and τεταξτον; the latter of which isshownbyDuCange to have been a small brass coin, as the other is supposed to have been by Mr Pinkerton. Besides these, the follis was divided into eight oboli, sixteen assaria or lepta, and thirty-two noumia, though in common computation it contained forty of these last. This coin, notwithstanding so many divisions, was of no more value than a halfpenny.

Mr Pinkerton controverts an opinion, common amongst medallists, that the largest brass coin or follis of the lower empire had forty small coins, expressed by the letter Μ upon it; that the next had thirty, expressed by the letter A; that the half was marked by the letter K, and the quarter by I, which contained only ten. Mr Pinkerton informs us that he had three coins of Anastasius, all marked Μ in large; one of them weighed more than half an ounce; the second forty grains less; and the third of 160 grains, or one third of an ounce; but the size was so very unequal, that the last, which was very thick, did not appear above half the size of the first. There are pieces of Justinian which weigh a whole ounce; but the size of copper was increased as the silver became scarcer, and the value of the coinage cannot be deduced from the weight of the coins, as it is plain that our own coinage is not of half the value with regard to the metal. A great number of medallions were struck by Constantius II.; but there is no other copper larger than the half ounce, excepting that of Anastasius, when the follis began to be struck larger. All medallists allow the others to be medallions.

The metal employed in these very small coins, though at first of brass, was always of a base and refuse kind; but copper is generally made use of in the parts of the as from the earliest times to the latest; and if brass be sometimes employed, it is never such as appears in the sestertii and dupondiarii, which is very fine and beautiful, but only the refuse. “Yellow brass of the right sort,” says Pinkerton, “seems totally to have ceased in the Roman coinage with the sestertius, under Gallienus, though a few small coins of very bad metal appear under that hue as late as Julian II.”

Silver was coined in Rome only as late as the 485th year of the city, or 266 before Christ. Varro indeed speaks of silver having been coined by Servius Tullius, and of the libella having been once in silver;’but Pliny’s authority must be accounted of more weight than that of this author, as he mistakes the λ ∣ τgα of Sicily for Roman coins, having been current at Rome during the time of the first Punic war. Even Pliny, according to our author, very [7:14:475]frequently mistakes with regard to matters much antecedent to his own time; and amongst the moderns he criticises severely Erasmus and Hume. “Erasmus,” says he, “who had been in England for some time, talks of leaden money being used here.” Not even a leaden token was struck in the reign of Henry VIII.; yet his authority has been followed with due deference to so great a name; fori how could Erasmus, who must have seen the matter with his own eyes, assert a direct falsehood? To give a later instance in a writer of reputation, Mr Hume, in the sixth volume of his history, has these words, in treating of the reign of James I. “It appears that copper halfpence and farthings began to be coined in this reign. Tradesmen had commonly carried on their retail business by leaden tokens. The small silver penny was soon lost, and at this time was nowhere to be found.” Copper halfpence and farthings were not struck till Charles 1I., 1672. There were small tokens for farthings struck in copper by James L, but not one for the halfpenny. The silver farthings had ceased with Edward VI., but the silver halfpence continued the sole coins till Edward II. It was by copper tokens that small business was carried’on. “The silver penny was much used till the end of the reign of George I.; and, so far from being nowhere to be found, was superabundant in every reign since that period, not excepting even the reign of George III. From these instances the reader may judge how strangely writers of all ages blunder when treating of a subject of which they arc entirely ignorant.”

The first silver denarii coined at Rome are supposed by Pinkerton to have been those which are impressed with the Roma ; and he inclines to account those the most ancient that have a double female head on the one side, and on the reverse Jupiter in a car, with Victory holding the reins, and the word Roma indented in a rude and singular manner. The double female head seems to denote Rome, in imitation of that of Janus upon the as. There are fifteen of these in the cabinet of Dr Hunter; one of the largest weighs ninety-eight grains and a quarter, and the rest, which seem to be of the greatest antiquity, are of various weights between that and eighty-four; the smaller and more modern weigh fifty-eight or fifty-nine grains; but Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that the large ones were of the very first Roman coinage, and struck during that interval of time between the coinage of the first silver denarius and the as of two ounces. He takes the indentation of the word Roma to be a mark of great antiquity; such a mode being scarcely known anywhere else, excepting in Caulonia, Crotona, and other towns of Italy. All of them are allowed to have been struck at least 400 b. c. As these coins are not double denarii, they must have been struck prior to the small ones; and Neumann has given an account of one of them recoined by Trajan, in which the indentation of Roma is carefully preserved. The first denarius was in value ten asses when the as weighed three ounces; and, allowing ninety grains at a medium for one of these large denarii, the proportion of copper to silver must have been as one to a hundred and sixty; but when the as fell to one ounce, the proportion was as one to eighty; when it fell to half an ounce, so that sixteen asses went to the denarius, the proportion was as one to sixty-four, at which it remained. Copper with us, in coinage, is to silver as one to forty, but in actual value as one to seventy-two.

At Rome the denarius was worth 8d.; the quinarius 4d.; and the sestertius, whether silver or brass, 2d. The denarius is the coin from which our penny is derived, and was the chief silver coin in Rome for 600 years. According to Celsus, seven denarii went to the Roman ounce, which in metals did not exceed 430 grains; but as all the denarii hitherto met with weigh at a medium only sixty grains, this would seem to make the Roman ounce only 420 grains; though perhaps this deficiency may be accounted for from the unavoidable waste of metal, even in the best preserved of these coins. According to this proportion, the Roman pound contained eighty-four denarii; but in tale there was a very considerable excess, for no fewer than 100 denarii went to the Roman pound. The Greek ounce appears to have been considerably larger than that of Rome, containing about 528 grains; yet notwithstanding this apparently great odds, the difference in the coins was so small that the Greek money went current in Rome, and the Roman in Greece. The denarius at first went for ten asses, and was marked X; it was afterwards raised to sixteen, which Mr Pinkerton supposes to have been about 175 years before Christ. Some are met with bearing the number XVI., nay, with every number up to CCCCLXXVI. These large numbers are supposed to have been mint-marks of some kind or other. After being raised to sixteen asses, it continued at the same value till the time of Gallienus; so that till that time we are to look upon its constituent parts to be sixteen asses or assaria, eight dupondii, four brass sestertii, and two silver quinarii. Under the Emperor Severus, however, or his successor Caracalla, denarii were struck of two sizes, one of them a third heavier than the common, and which we must of consequence suppose to have borne a third more value. This large piece obtained the name of argentus, and argenteus Philippus, or the “silver Philip;” the name of Philip having become common to almost every coin. The common denarii now began to be termed minuti and ατgenti Philippi minutuli, &c. to express their being smaller than the rest. Some have imagined that the large denarii were of the same^value with the small, and only of worse metal; but Mr Pinkerton observes, that amongst the few which have any difference of metal, the smallest are always the worst. The first mention of the minuti is in the time of Alexander Severus, who reduced the price of pork from eight minuti at Rome to two and to one. The minutus argenteus of that age was about 40 grains; and, from the badness of the metal, was not worth above 4d. of our money. Thus, the price of meat was by this prince reduced first to 8d. and then to 4d.

According to Zozimus and other writers, the purity of the Roman coin was restored by Aurelian; but Mr Pinkerton controverts this opinion, thinking it more probable that he only made the attempt without success, or that this reformation might be entirely confined to gold, on which there is an evident change after the time of this emperor. His successor Tacitus is said to have allowed no brass to be upon any account mixed with silver; yet the few coins of this emperor are very much alloyed. We are certain, however, that the emperor Diocletian restored the silver to its ancient purity; the denarii struck in his reign being very small indeed, but of as fine silver as the most ancient coins of the empire. After Gordian III. the small denarius entirely vanished, whilst the large one was so diminished that it resembled the minutus, or small one of Caracalla, in size. Gallienus introduced the denarii acrei instead of the sestertii. The argenteus, though reduced more than one third in size, contained six denarii acrei, the old standard of sestertii. According to the writers of this period, and some time afterwards, the denarius or argenteus contained sixty assaria; whence it follows that each denarius acreus had ten, and from this it probably had its name. The assaria are of the size of the argentei already mentioned, and show the copper to have retained nearly its old proportion of value to the silver, that is, one’to sixty.

A larger silver coin was introduced by Constantine I. who accommodated the new money to the pound of gold, in such a manner that a thousand of the former in tale were equal to the latter in value; so that this new piece from thence obtained the name of the milliarensis or “thousander.” Its weight at a medium was seventy grains, or seventy to the pound of silver; but Mr Pinkerton is of [7:14:476]opinion that it might have contained seventy-two grains, of which two have now perished by the softness of the silver; that the pound contained seventy-two; or that two of the number might be allowed for coinage, whilst the alloy alone would pay for coining gold. The code says that sixty went to the pound, but the numbers of this are quite corrupt. The milliarensis was worth about a shilling sterling. The argentei or denarii, however, were still the most common currency; and having been originally rated at a hundred to the pound of silver in tale, they thence began to be denominated centenionales, or “hundreders.” Those of Constantine I. and II., Constans, and Constantius, weigh from fifty grains down to forty; those of Julian and Jovian from forty to thirty; and those of the succeeding emperors from that time to Justinian, from thirty to twenty. Under Heraclius they ceased entirely; and, from Justinian to their total abolition, had been brought down from fifteen to ten grains. A similar decrease of weight took place in the milliarensis, those of Constantine and Constans being above seventy grains in weight, those of Arcadius not above sixty, and the milliarensis of Justinian not above thirty grains; but, from the weight of those in Dr Hunter’s cabinet, Mr Pinkerton deduces the medium to have been exactly seventy grains and eight seventeenths. These coins were also called majorinae.

The smaller silver coins of Rome were, I. The quinarius, at first called victoriatus, from the image of Victory on its reverse, which it continued to bear from first to last. Its original value was five asses, but it was afterwards raised to eight, when the value of the denarius increased to sixteen. According to Pliny, it was first coined in consequence of the lex Clodia, about the 525th year of Rome. Some are of opinion that it was called κεgατιον under the Constantinopolitan empire, because it was worth a κεgατιον of gold, 144 of which went to the ounce; but this is denied by Mr Pinkerton, because at the time that the word κεgατιον first appears in history, the denarius did not weigh above thirty grains; and, consequently, as twenty-five must have gone to the gold solidus, of which there were six in the ounce, 130 denarii must have gone to the ounce of gold. He is therefore of opinion that the word κεgατιον was only another name for the denarius when much reduced in size, probably owing to the great scarcity of silver in Constantinople; though in the same city there was plenty of gold, and consequently the gold solidus was never diminished; for Montesquieu has well observed, that gold must be common where silver is rare. Hence gold was the common regulation of accounts in the eastern empire. The δ ικ ε gατιov met with in ancient authors was, according to Mr Pinkerton, merely an improper name for the milliarensis, when, on account of the scarcity of silver, the denarius was reduced, and no milliarenses coined; so that the current milliarensis of former reigns happened to be double to the denarius or centenionalis. The quinarius diminishes in size along with the other coins; those of Augustus weighing thirty grains, those of Severus twenty-five, those of Constantine 1. twenty, those of Justinian twelve, and those of Heraclius only five. A new silver coinage seems to have taken place after the days of this emperor, as the little we then meet with, which in the best cabinets scarcely exceeds a dozen of coins, consists entirely of large unshapely pieces of coarse metal.

The consular denarius had also four silver sestertii, till the as fell· to half an ounce, when it was thought proper to coin the sestertius in brass, as it continued to be ever afterwards. lhe very last silver sestertius which appears is one with a head of Mercury, and H. S.; on the reverse a caduccus p. sepvllivs, who appears to be the p. sepvllivs macer of the denarii of Julius Caesar. If so, as is most probable, the sestertius was coined in silver down to Augustus; and it is of course not to be expected that any of brass can appear till Augustus, under whom they were in fact quite common. We have indeed seen no coin which could be a consular brass sestertius; and though we have certainly brass dupondii of Caesar, yet it is reasonable to infer that the brass sestertius was first coined by Augustus. Not one silver sestertius appears during the whole imperial period; yet we know that the sestertius was the most common of all silver coins. The consular sestertii of silver, marked H. S. are not uncommon, nor the quinarii; but the latter are very scarce of all the emperors, if we except one instance, the asia recepta of Augustus.

The Roman gold coinage was still later than that of silver. Pliny tells us, that “gold was coined sixty-two years after silver; and the scruple went for sixty sesterces. It was afterwards thought proper to coin forty pieces out of the pound of gold. And our princes have by degrees diminished their weight to forty-five in the pound.” This account is confirmed by the pieces which still remain; for we have that very coin weighing a scruple which went for twenty sesterces. On one side is the head of Mars, and on the other an eagle; and it is marked xx. We have another coin of the same kind, but double, marked xxxx; and its triple, marked ∙ψx or 60; the ∙ψ being the old numeral character for 50. Mr Pinkerton, the discoverer of this, treats other medallists, as usual, with great asperity. Savot and Hardouin are mentioned by name; the latter, he says, is “ignorant of common sense;” and neither he nor Savot could explain it but by reading backwards, putting the√ψ for the Roman V, and thus making it xv. Other readings have been given by various medallists, but none have hit upon the true one excepting our author, though the coin itself led to it, being just three times the weight of that marked xx. We have likewise half the largest coin, which is marked xxx, and which weighs twenty-six grains; the smallest is only seventeen and a half, and the xxxx weighs thirty-four, and the ιx or drachma fifty-three. There is also the didrachm of this coinage, of a hundred and six grains.

The aurei, or Roman gold coins, were at first forty-eight in the pound; but they were afterwards diminished in number to forty, owing to an augmentation in the weight of each coin. In the time of Sylla, the aureus weighed no less than from a hundred and sixty-four to a hundred and sixty-eight grains, and there were only thirty in the pound; but such confusion in the coinage was introduced by that conqueror, that no person could know exactly what he was worth. Till this time the aureus seems to have continued of the value of thirty silver denarii, about one pound sterling; for about that time it was enlarged a whole third, that it might still be equivalent to the full number of denarii. But after Sylla had taken Athens, and the arts and manners of Greece became objects of imitation to the Romans, the aureus fell to forty in the pound, probably when Sylla had abdicated his dictatorship. Thus, being reduced near to the scale of the Greek χ^ισος, it passed for twenty denarii, as the latter did for as many drachmas, being in currency 13s. 4d. sterling. “This,” says Pinkerton, “is the more probable, because we know from Suetonius, that the great Caesar brought from Gaul so much gold that it sold for nine times its weight of silver; but the Gallic gold was of a very base sort.”

In the time of Claudius, the aureus was valued at a hundred sesterii, or twenty-five silver denarii, at which it continued till the time of Heliogabalus, when it fell to about ninety-two grains at a medium, or rose in number to fifty-five in the pound. In the reign of Philip, during which the city completed its thousandth year, the aureus was coined of two or three sizes. These are impressed with a head of Rome on one side, and various figures on the other; but the workmanship is so rude that they are supposed to have been struck in some of the more uncivilized provin-ccs[7:14:477] of the empire. The practice of having different gold coins, however, continued under Valerian, Gallienus, and his successors. In the time of Gallienus, they were of thirty, sixty-five, and from eighty-six to ninety-three grains, the double aurei being from 172 to 183½ grains; but the arcus properly so called was from eighty-six to ninety-three, those of thirty and thirty two being the trientes aurei of the,//istoriae Augustae Scriptores ; whilst the larger, from sixty-two to sixty-five, are to be accounted double trientes, and were perhaps called minuti aureu The value of these different sizes of aurei is not known.

That Aurelian made some alteration in the coin is certain; but Pinkerton supposes it to have been only in the gold, because under him and his successor Probus the common aureus was of a hundred grains, a size confined to those emperors. There are likewise halves of about fifty grains, and double aurei, commonly of very fine workmanship, and upwards of two hundred grains. In the time of Gallienus, the precious metal was so common that this emperor vied in magnificence with Nero and Heliogabalus. Aurelian, who plundered the rich city of Palmyra, and thus became master of the treasures of the East, obtained such a profusion of gold, that he looked upon it as being produced by nature in greater plenty than silver. It is remarkable, that during this emperor’s reign, there was a rebellion amongst the money coiners, that could not be quelled but by the destruction of several thousands; which Mr Pinkerton ascribes to his having ordered the gold to be restored to its former size, but to go for no more silver than it formerly did. “So very little silver,” says he, “occurs of this period, that it is plain no alteration in the silver produced the war with the moneyers; and in the brass he made no change; or if he had, it were strange that such commotions should arise about so trifling a metal. But if, as appears from the coins, he ordered the aureus, which had fallen to eighty grains, to be raised to about a hundred, it is no wonder that the contractors should be in an uproar; for a whole quarter of their coinage, amounting, as would seem, to all their profits, was lost. Aurelian judged, that when he found gold so common in the East, it was equally so in the west, and that the moneyers must have made a most exorbitant profit; but his ideas on this subject were partial and unjust: and after his short reign, which did not exceed five months after the alteration, the gold returned to its former course, though a few pieces occur of Aurelian’s standard, struck, as would seem, in the commencement of the reign of Probus his successor.

From this time to that of Constantine I. the aureus weighed between seventy and eighty grains; but in his reign it was changed for the solidus, of which six went to the ounce of gold, which passed for fourteen milliarenses, and twenty-five denarii, as before; the value of silver being now to gold as fourteen to one. This new coin continued of the same value till the final downfall of the Constantinopolitan empire, gold being always very plentiful in that city, though silver became more and more scarce. The solidus was worth 12s. sterling. Here again Mr Pinkerton severely criticises Mr Clarke and Mr Raper. The former, he says, with respect to the value of gold in the time of Constantine “has left all his senses behind him. In page 267, he absurdly asserts that twenty denarii went to the solidus in the time of Theodosius I., and proceeds with this deplorable error to the end of his work. He then tells us that only fourteen denarii went to the solidus under Constantine I.” To Mr Raper, however, he is a little more merciful, owning that, “though he has strangely confounded the milliarcnsis with the denarius, he has yet kept common sense for his guide.” Mr Pinkerton, indeed, argues with great probability, “that had any change in the coinage taken place between the time of Constantine and Theodosius I. that is, in less than fifty years, the laws of that period, which are all in the Ιheodosian code, must have noticed it.” To this and other arguments upon the subject Mr Pinkerton adds the following observation upon the value of gold and silver: “As a state advances to its height, gold increases in value; and as a state declines, it decreases, providing the metals are kept on a par as to purity. Hence we may argue, that gold decreased in its relation to silver perhaps four or five centuries, furnished most European kingdoms with gold in coin, which otherwise would, from their want of arts and of intercourse with the East, then the grand seminary of that metal, have been almost altogether ignorant of gold. These gold chins were called Bezants in Europe, because sent from Byzantium or Constantinople, and were solidi of the old scale, six to the ounce. In the Byzantine writers, the solidus is also called nomisma, or the coin; crysinos, because of gold; and liyperperos, from its being refined with fire, or from its being of bright gold flaming like fire. The solidi also, as the aurei formerly, received names from the princes whose portraits they bore; as Michelati, Manuelati. Solidus is a term likewise used for the aureus by Apuleius, who lived in the time of Antoninus the Philosopher; nay, as early as the praetorian edicts of the time of Trajan. It was then a distinction from the semissis or half. In the time of Valerian, when aurei of different sizes had been introduced, it became necessary to distinguish the particular aurei meant. Hence, in the imperial rescripts published by the Historiae Augustae Scriptores, Valerian uses the term Philippi nostri vultus for the common aurei. Aurelian uses the same term aurei Philippei for the aurei, which he had restored to their size in some degree. Gallienus uses aurei Valeriani for his father’s coins. Aurei Antoniniani are likewise put by Valerian for coins of the early Antonini, of superior standard to any then used.

In the first gold coinage at Rome the aureus was divided into four parts: the semissis of sixty sestertii; the tremissis or third, of forty; the fourth, the name of which is not mentioned, of thirty; and the scrupulum of twenty. But in a short time all of these fell into disuse, except the semissis or half, which is extremely scarce; so that it is probable that few have been struck. It is an erroneous opinion (according to Mr Pinkerton) that the semissis was called a denarius aureus. The aureus itself indeed had this name; but the name of quiìiarius is applied to the semissis with greater propriety than the former. Trientes or tremisses of gold are found of Valerian and his son Gallienus, and weigh about thirty grains. Those of Salonina, the wife of Gallienus, weigh thirty-three grains. Under the Constantinopolitan empire, tremisses again made their appearance; and from the time of Valentinian downwards, the thirds are the most common kinds of gold, being worth about 4s. sterling. The semissis is likewise mentioned, but none occurs earlier than the time of Basiliscus. The gold tremissis was the pattern of the French and Spanish gold coins; as the silver denarius, in its diminished state, was of the Gothic and Saxon penny.

We shall close this account of the Roman money with some remarks concerning the mint and method of coinage. This at first seems to have been under the direction of the quaestor. About the time that silver was first coined in Rome, viz. about 266 b. c. the triumviri monetales were created. They were at first of senatorial rank, but were by Augustus chosen from amongst the equestrian order; and the title of triumviri was continued till after the time of Caracalla; but under Aurelian there was probably but one master of the mint, called rationalis ; and Pinkerton is of opinion that the change took place under Gallienus. He seems also to have permitted the provincial cities to coin gold and silver, as well as to have altered the form of the mints in the capital, and to have ordered them all to strike money with Latin legends, and of the same forms; as in [7:14:478]his time we first meet with coins with mint marks of cities and offices. The violent insurrection which took place in his reign has already been mentioned, as well as its probable cause; and Mr Gibbon has shown, that the concealed enemies of Aurelian took such advantage of this insurrection, that it cost 7000 of his best troops before it could be quelled. About this time the procurator monetae seems to have succeeded the rationalis as director of the mint. In the colonies, the direction of the mint seems to have been given to the decemviri, whose names frequently occur in colonial coins, which, though generally of rude invention and ruder execution, are yet often interesting and important.

The engraving of the ancient dies used in coinage was a work of much genius and labour, and at Rome Greek artists were generally employed in it; but it has been thought a matter of great surprise that scarce any two ancient coins are to be found exactly the same. Hence some antiquaries have imagined that only a single coin was thrown off from each die. Beauvais informs us that the only two Roman imperial coins of the first times which he had seen perfectly alike were those of the Emperor Galba. It is, however, the opinion of the best judges, that a perfect similarity between two medals is a very great reason for supposing one of them to be forged. “It must also be observed,” says Mr Pinkerton, “that the differences in coins apparently from the same die are often so minute as to escape an eye not used to microscopic observations of this sort. But it would be surprising if any two ancient coins were now found struck with the same die; for, out of each million issued, not above one has reached us. Dies soon gave way by the violence of the work, and the ancients had no puncheons or matrices, but were forced to engrave many dies for the same coin. Even in our mint, upon sending for a shilling’s worth of new halfpence, it will appear that three or four dies have been used. Sometimes the obverse of the die gives way, sometimes the reverse; but among us it is renewed by puncheons, though with variations in the lettering or other minute strokes; while the ancients were forced to recur to another die differently engraven. The engravers of the die were called caelatores ; other officers employed in the mint were the spectatores, expectatores, or nummularii. The melters were styled fu-sarii, flatuarii, and flaturarii ; those who adjusted the weight were called acquatores monetarum ; those who put the pieces into the die, supposi tores ; and those who struck them, malleatores. At the head of each office was an officer named primicerius, and the foreman was named optio et exactor?

In order to assist the high relief on the coins, the metal, after being melted and refined, was cast into bullets, as appears from the ancient coins not being cut or filed on the edges, but often cracked, and always rough and unequal. These bullets were then put into the die, and received the impression by repeated strokes of the hammer, though sometimes a machine appears to have been used for this purpose; for Boiterue informs us, that there was a picture of the Roman mintage in a grotto near Baiae, where a machine was represented holding up a large stone, as if to let it fall suddenly, and strike the coin at once. None of the ancient money was cast in moulds, excepting the most ancient and very large Roman brass, commonly called weights, and other Italian pieces of that sort; all the rest being mere forgeries of ancient and modern times. Some Roman moulds which have been found are a proof of this; and from these certain medallists have erroneously imagined that the ancients first cast their money in moulds, and then stamped it in order to make the impression more clear and sharp.

The ancients had some knowledge of the method of cre-nating the edges of their coins, which they did by cutting out regular notches upon them; and of this kind we find some of the Syrian and ancient consular coins, with a few others. The former were cast in this shape, and then struck; but the latter were crenated by incision, to prevent forgery, by showing the inside of the metal. But the ancient forgers also found out a method of imitating this; for Pinkerton informs us that he had a Roman consular coin, of which the incisions, like the rest, were plated with silver over the copper.

VI.— Of the Preservation of Medals.

We now come to consider what it is that distinguishes one medal from another, and why some are so highly prized in comparison of others. This, in general, besides its genuineness, consists in the high degree of preservation in which it exists. This is called by Pinkerton the conservation of medals, and is by him regarded as good and as perfect. In this he says that a true judge is so nice, that he will reject even the rarest coins if in the least defaced either in the figures or legend. Some, however, are obliged to content themselves with those which are a little rubbed, whilst those of superior taste and abilities have in their cabinets only such as are in the very state in which they came from the mint; and such, he says, are the cabinets of Sir Robert Austin, and Horace Walpole, of Roman silver, at Strawberryhill. It is absolutely necessary, however, that a coin be in what is called good preservation; which in the Greek or Roman emperors, and the colonial coins, is supposed to be when the legends can be read with some difficulty; but when the conservation is perfect, and the coin just as it came from the mint, even the most common coins are valuable.

The fine rust, like varnish, which covers the surface of brass and copper coins, is found to be the best preserver of them, and is brought on by lying in a certain kind of soil. Gold cannot be contaminated but by iron mould, which happens when the coin lies in a soil impregnated with iron; but silver is susceptible of various kinds.of rust, principally green and red, both of which yield to vinegar. In gold and silver coins the rust must be removed, as being prejudicial; but in brass and copper it is preservative and ornamental, a circumstance taken notice of by the ancients. “This fine rust,” says Mr Pinkerton, “which is indeed a natural varnish not imitable by the art of man, is sometimes of a delicate blue, like that of a turquoise; sometimes of a bronze brown, equal to that observable in ancient statues of bronze, and so highly prized; and sometimes of an exquisite green, a little on the azure hue, which last is the most beautiful of all. It is also found of a fine purple, of olive, and of a cream colour or pale yellow; which last is exquisite, and shows the impression to as much advantage as paper of cream colour, used in all great foreign presses, does copperplates and printing. The Neapolitan patina (the rust in question) is of a light green; and, when free from excrescence or blemish, is very beautiful. Sometimes the purple patina gleams through an upper coat of another colour, with as fine effect as a variegated silk or gem. In a few instances a rust of a deeper green is found; and it is sometimes spotted with the red or bronze shade, which gives it quite the appearance of the East Indian stone called the blood-stone. These rusts are all, when the real product of time, as bardas the metal itself, and preserve it much better than any artificial varnish could have done; concealing at the same time not the most minute particle of the impression of the coin.”

The value of medals is lowered when any of the letters of the legend are misplaced; as a suspicion of forgery is thus induced. Such is the case with many of those of Claudius Gothicus. The same, or even greater, diminution in value takes place in such coins as have not been well fixed in the die, which has occasioned their slipping [7:14:479]under the strokes of the hammer, and thus made a double or triple image. Many coins of this kind are found, in which the one side is perfectly well formed, but the other blundered in the manner just mentioned. Another blemish, but of smaller moment, and which to some may be rather a recommendation, is when the workmen through inattention have put another coin into the die without taking out the former. Thus the coin is convex on one side, and concave on the other, having the same figure upon both its sides.

The medals said by the judges in this science to be countermarked are very rare, and highly valued. They have a small stamp impressed upon them; in some a head, in others a few letters, such as Aug : n. probus, &c. ; which marks are supposed to imply an alteration in the value of the coin, as was the case with the countermarked coins of Henry VIII. and Queen Mary of Scotland. Some have a small hole through them; sometimes with a little ring fastened in it, having been used as ornaments; but this makes no alteration in their value. Neither is it any diminution in the value of a coin that it is split at the edges; for coins of undoubted antiquity have often been found in this state, the cause of which has been already explained. On the contrary, this cracking is generally considered as a great merit; but Mr Pinkerton suspects that one of these cracked coins has given rise to an error with respect to the wife of Carausius, who reigned for some time in Britain. The inscription is read ohiuna Aug; and there is a crack in the medal just before the O of ori-una. Without this crack Mr Pinkerton supposes that it would have been read Fortuna Aug.

Some particular soils have the property of giving silver a yellow colour, as if it had been gilt. It naturally acquires a black colour through time,Wiich any sulphureous vapour will bring on in a few minutes. From its being so susceptible of injuries, it was always mixed by the ancients with much alloy, in order to harden it. Hence the impressions of the ancient silver coins remain perfect to this day, whilst those of modern coins are obliterated in a few years. On this account Pinkerton expresses a wish that modern states would allow a much greater proportion of alloy in their silver coin than they usually do. As gold admits of no rust except that from iron above mentioned, the coins of this metal are generally in perfect conservation, and fresh as from the mint. ∙

To cleanse gold coins from this rust, it is best to steep them in aquafortis, which, though a very powerful solvent of other metals, has no effect upon gold. Silver may be cleansed by steeping for a day or two in vinegar, but more effectually by boiling in water with three parts of tartar and one of sea-salt; on both these metals, however, the rust is always in spots, and never forms an entire incrustation, as on brass or copper. The coins of these two metals must never be cleansed, as they would thus be rendered full of small holes eaten by the rust. Sometimes, however, they are found so totally obscured with rust, that nothing can be discovered upon them; in which case it is best to clear them with a graver; but it may also be done by boiling them for twenty-four hours in water with three parts of tartar and one of alum; not sea-salt, as in silver coins.

The high state of preservation in which ancient coins are usually found is thus accounted for by Mr Hancarville. He observes, that the chief reason is the custom of the ancients always to bury one or more coins with their dead, in order to pay for their passage over the river Styx. “From Phidon of Argos,” says he, “to Constantine I. are thirty-six generations; and from Magna Graecia to the Euphrates, from Cyrene to the Euxine Sea, Grecian arts prevailed, and the inhabitants amounted to above 30,000,000. There died, therefore, in that time and region, not less than ten thousand millions of people, all of whom had coins of one sort or other buried with them. The tombs were sacred and untouched; and afterwards neglected, till modern curiosity or chance began to disclose them. The urn of Flavia Valentina, in Mr Towley’s capital collection, contained seven brass coins of Antoninus Pius and Heliogabalus. Such are generally black, from being burnt with the dead. The best and freshest coins were used on these occasions from respect to the dead; and hence their fine conservation. At Syracuse a skeleton was found in a tomb, with a beautiful gold coin in its mouth; and innumerable other instances might be given, for hardly is a funeral urn found without coins. Other incidents also conspire to furnish us with numbers of ancient coins, though the above-recited circumstance be the chief cause of perfect conservation. In Sicily, the silver coins with the head of Proserpine were found in such numbers as to weigh 600 French livres or pounds. In the sixteenth century, 60,000 Roman coins were found at Modena, thought to be a military chest hid after the battle of Bedriacum, when Otho was defeated by Vitellius. Near Brest, in the year 1760, between 20,000 and 30,000 Roman coins were found. A treasure of gold coins of Lysimachus was found at Deva on the Marus; and Strabo (lib. vii.) and Pausanias (in Attic.) tell that he was defeated by the Getae, at which time this treasure seems to have fallen into their hands.

Thus far Mr Pinkerton, proceeding on the authority of Mr Hancarville and others. But considering these vast numbers of coins found in various places, it seems surprising how so few should now remain in the cabinets of the curious, as the same author informs us that the whole of the different ancient coins known to us amount only to about 80,000, though he owns that the calculation cannot be esteemed accurate.

VII.— How to distinguish true Medals from Counterfeits.

The most difficult and the most important thing in the whole science of medals is the method of distinguishing the true from the counterfeit. The value put upon ancient coins made the forgery of them almost coeval with the science itself; and as no laws inflict a punishment upon such forgers, men of great genius and abilities have undertaken the trade: but whether to the real detriment of the science or not, is a matter of some doubt; for if only exact copies of genuine medals are sold for the originals, the imposition may be deemed trifling. But the case must be accounted very different, if people take it upon them to forge medals which never existed. At first the forgeries were extremely gross; and medals were forged of Priam, of Aristotle, Artemisia, Hannibal, and most of the other illustrious personages of antiquity. Most of these were done in such a manner, that the fraud could easily be discovered; but others have imposed even upon very learned men. Pinkerton mentions a remarkable medal of the Emperor Heraclius, representing him in a chariot on the reverse, with Greek and Latin inscriptions, which Joseph Scaliger and Lipsius imagined to have been struck in his own time, but which was certainly issued in Italy in the fifteenth century. “Other learned men;” says he, “have been strangely misled, when speaking of coins; for to be learned in one subject excludes not gross ignorance in others. Budaeus (de Asse) quotes a denarius of Cicero, μ. Tull. Erasmus, in one of his Epistles, tells us with great gravity, that the gold coin ofBrutus struck in Thrace, KOΣ∩N, bears the patriarch Noah coming out of the ark with his two sons, and takes the Roman eagle for the dove with the olive branch. Winkelman, in his letters, informs us that the small brass piece with Virgil’s head, reverse EPO, is undoubtedly ancient Roman; and adds, that no [7:14:480]knowledge of coins can be had out of Rome; but Winkelman, so conversant in statues, knew nothing of coins. It is from other artists and other productions that any danger of deceit arises. And there is no wonder that even the skilful are misled by such artists as have used this trade; for among them appear the names of Victor Gambello, Giovani del Cavino, called the Paduan, and his son Alessandro Bassiano. likewise of Padua, Benvenuto Cellini, Alessandro Greco, Leo Aretino, Jacobo da Frezzo, Federigo Bonzagna, and Giovani Jacopo, his brother; Sebastiano Plumbo, Valerio de Vizenza, Gorlaeus, a German, Carteron of Holland, and others, all or most of them of the 16th century; and Cavino the Paduan, who is the most famous, lived in the middle of that century. The forgeries of Cavino are held in no little esteem, being of wonderful execution. His and those of Carteron are the most numerous, many of the other artists here mentioned not having forged above two or three coins. Later forgers were Dervieu of Florence, who confined himself to medallions, and Cogomier, who gave coins of the thirty tyrants in small brass. The chief part of the forgeries of Greek medals which have come to my knowledge are of the first mentioned, and a very gross kind, representing persons who could never appear upon coin, such as Priam, ,‰neas, Plato, Alcibiades, Artemisia, and others. The real Greek coins were very little known or valued till the works of Goltzius appeared, which were happily posterior to the era of the grand forgers. Why later forgers have seldom thought of counterfeiting them cannot he easily accounted for, if it is not owing to the masterly workmanship of the originals, which set all imitation at defiance. Forgeries, however, of most ancient coins may be met with, and of the Greek among the rest.”

The forgeries are more conspicuous among the Roman medals than any other kind of coins; but we are not to look upon all these as the work of modern artists. On the contrary, we are assured that many of them were fabricated in the times of the Romans themselves, some of them being even held in more estimation than the genuine coins themselves, on account of their being plated, and otherwise executed in a manner to which modern forgers could never attain. Even the ancients held some of these counterfeits in such estimation, that Pliny informs us there were frequently many true denarii given for one false one. Caracalla is said to have coined money of copper and lead plated with silver; and plated coins, the work of ancient forgers, occur of many Greek cities and princes; nay, there are even forgeries of barbaric coins, “Some Roman coins,” says Mr Pinkerton, “are found of iron or lead plated with brass, perhaps trials of the skill of the forger. Iron is the most common; but one decursio of Nero is known of lead plated with copper. Neumann justly observes, that no historic faith can be put in plated coins, and that most faulty reverses, &c. arise from plated coins not being noticed as such. Even of the Roman consular coins not very many have ever been forged. The celebrated silver denarius of Brutus, with the cap of liberty and two daggers, is the chief instance of a consular coin of which a counterfeit is known. But it is easily rejected by this mark: in the true coin the cap of liberty is below the guard or hilt of the daggers; in the false, the top of it rises above that hilt.

The imperial series of medals is the grand object of modern medallic forgeries; and the deception was at first extended to the most eminent writers upon the subject. The counterfeits are by Mr Pinkerton divided into six classes.

I. Such as are known to be imitations, but valued on account of the artists by whom they are executed. In this class the medals of the Paduan rank highest; the others being so numerous that a complete series of imperial medals of almost every kind, nay, almost of every medallion, may be formed from among them. In France, particularly, by far the greater part of the cabinets are filled with counterfeits of this kind. They are distinguished from such as are genuine by the following marks: 1. The counterfeits are almost universally thinner. 2. They arc never worn or damaged. 3. The letters are modern. 4. They are either destitute of varnish entirely, or have a false one, which is easily known by its being black, shining, and greasy, and very easily hurt by the touch of a needle, while the varnish of ancient medals is as hard as the metal itself. Instead of the greasy black varnish above mentioned, indeed, they have sometimes a light green one, spotted with a kind of iron marks, and composed of sulphur, verdigris, and vinegar. It may frequently be distinguished by the hairstrokes of the pencil with which it was laid on being visible upon it. 5. The sides are either filed or too much smoothed by art, or bear the marks of a small hammer. 6. The counterfeits are always exactly circular, which is not the case with ancient medals, especially after the time of Trajan.

The Paduan forgeries may be distinguished from those of inferior artists by the following marks: 1. The former arc seldom thinner than the ancient: 2. They very seldom appear as worn or damaged, but the others very frequently, especially in the reverse, and legend of the reverse, which sometimes, as in forged Othos, appear as half consumed by time: 3. The letters in moulds taken from the antique coins have the rudeness of antiquity: 4. False varnish is commonly light green or black, and shines too much or too little: 5. The sides of forged coins are frequently quite smooth, and undistinguishable from the ancient, though to accomplish this requires but little art: 6. Counterfeit medals are frequently as irregular in their form as the genuine; but the Paduan are generally circular, though false coins have often little pieces cutoff, in perfect imitation of the genuine: 7. In cast coins, the letters do not go sharp down into the medal, and have no fixed outline; their minute angles, as well as those of the drapery, are commonly filled up, and have not the sharpness of the genuine kind. Where the letters or figures are faint, the coin is greatly to be suspected.

The letters form the great criterion of medals, the ancient being very rude, but the modern otherwise; the reason of which, according to Cellini, is, that the ancients engraved all their matrices with the graver or hurin, while the modern forgers strike theirs with a punch.

According to Vico the false patina is green, black, russet, brown, gray, and iron colour. The green is made from verdigris, the black is the smoke of sulphur, the gray is made of chalk steeped in urine, the coin being left for some days in the mixture. The russet is next to the natural, by reason of its being a kind of froth which the fire forces from ancient coins; but when false, it shines too much. To make it, they frequently took the large brass coins of the Ptolemies, which were often corroded, and made them red hot in the fire, put the coins upon them, and a fine patina adhered. Sometimes they took an old defaced coin, covered with real patina, and stamped it anew; but the patina is then too bright in the cavities, and too dull in the protuberances. The trial of brass coins with the tongue is not to be despised; for, if modern, the patina tastes bitter or pungent, while, if ancient, it is quite tasteless.

Mr Pinkerton informs us, that all medallions from Julius Caesar to Adrian are much to be suspected of forgery; the true medals of the first fourteen emperors being exceedingly valuable, and to be found only in the cabinets of princes.

II. The second class of counterfeit medals contains those cast from moulds taken from the Paduan forgeries, and [7:14:481]others done by eminent masters. These are sometimes more difficult to be discovered than the former, because in casting them they can give any degree of thickness they please; and, filling the small sandholes with mastic, they retouch the letters with a graver, and cover the whole with varnish. The instructions already given for the former class, however, are also useful for those of the second; with this addition, that medals of this class are generally lighter than the genuine, because fire rarefies the metal in some degree, whilst that which is struck is rather condensed by the strokes. In gold and silver medals there cannot be any deception of this kind, because these metals admit not of patina, and consequently the varnish betrays the imposition. The marks of the file on the margin of those of the second class are a certain sign of forgery, though these do not always indicate the forgery to be of modern date, because the Romans often filed the edges of coins to accommodate them to the purposes of ornament, as quarter guineas are sometimes put into the bottoms of punch ladles. It is common to imitate the holes of medals made by time, by means of aquafortis; but this destroys the sides of a coin more effectually than if it had been naturally corroded. The fraud, however, is not easily distinguished.

III. Medals cast in moulds from the antique. — In this mode some forgers, as Beauvais informs us, have been so very careful, that they would melt a common medal of the emperor whom they meant to counterfeit, lest the quality of the metal should betray them. “This,” says Pinkerton, “has been done in the silver Septimius Severus, with the reverse of a triumphal arch, for which a common coin of the same prince has been melted; and in other instances.” Putting medals in the fire or upon hot iron to cleanse them, gives them an appearance of being cast; for some spots of the metal, being softer than the rest, will run, which makes this one of the worst methods of cleaning medals. The directions given for discovering the two former deceptions hold good also in this.

IV. Ancient medals retouched and altered. — This is a class of counterfeits more difficult to be discovered than any other. “The art,” says Pinkerton, “exerted in this class is astonishing; and a connoisseur is the less apt to suspect it, because the coins themselves are in fact ancient. The acute minds of the Italian artists exerted themselves in this way when the other forgeries became common and known. With graving tools they alter the portraits, the reverses, and the inscriptions themselves, in a surprising manner. Of a Claudius struck at Antioch they make an Otho; of a Faustina, a Titiana; of a Julia Severa, a Didia Clara; of a Macrinus, a Pescennius, &c. Give them a Marcus Aurelius, he starts up a Pertinax, by thickening the beard a little, and enlarging the nose. In short, wherever there is the least resemblance in persons, reverses, or legends, an artist may from a trivial medal generate a most scarce and valuable one. This fraud is distinguishable by the false varnish which sometimes masks it; but, above all, by the letters of the legend, which are always altered. Though this be sometimes done with an artifice almost miraculous, yet most commonly the characters straggle, are disunited, and not in a line.”

In counterfeits of this kind, sometimes the obverse is not touched, but the reverse made hollow, and filled with mastic coloured like the coin, and engraved with such device and legend as is most likely to bring a great price; others are only retouched in some minute parts, by which, however, the value of the coin is much diminished. Against all these arts severe scrutiny must be made by the purchaser, upon the medal itself; and the investigation and opinion of eminent antiquaries must be obtained as to its being altered, or genuine when issued from the mint.

V. Medals impressed with new devices, or soldered. — In the first article of this class the reverses have been totally filed off, and new ones impressed with a die and hammer. This is done by putting the face or obverse, whichever is not touched, upon different folds of pasteboard, and then applying the die and striking it with a hammer. The forgery in this class is very easily discovered, because the devices and inscriptions on the counterfeits are known not to exist on true medals; as the Pons Aelius on the reverse of Hadrian, the Expeditio Judaica of the same emperor, &c. The difference of fabrication in the face or reverse will be discovered at the first glance by any person of skill. >

The soldered medals consist of two halves belonging to different medals, sawed through the middle, and then joined with solder. This mode of counterfeiting is common in silver and in brass coins. « They will take an Antoninus, for example, and saw off the reverse, then solder to the obverse, which they have treated in the same manner. This makes a medal which, from an unknowing purchaser, will bring a hundred times the price of the two coins which compose it. When the deceit is used in brass coins, they take care that the metals be of one hue, though indeed some pretenders in this way sometimes solder copper and brass together, which at once reveals the deceit. Medals which havé a portrait on each side, and which are generally valuable, are the most liable to a suspicion of this fraud. To a very nice eye the minute ring of solder is always visible; and upon inserting a graver, the fabrication falls into halves.”

In the same manner reverses are sometimes soldered to faces not originally belonging to them; as one mentioned by Ptre Jobert, of Domitian with an amphitheatre, with a reverse of Titus joined to it. Another art is sometimes made use of in this kind of counterfeits, of which there is an instance in the temple of Janus upon Nero’s medals, where the middle brass is taken off, and. inserted in a cavity made in the middle of a large coin of that prince. In the coins of the lower empire, however, the reverses of medals are sometimes so connected with their obverses, that a suspicion of forgery sometimes occurs without any foundation. They arc met with most commonly after the time of Gallienus, when such a number of usurpers arose that it was difficult to obtain an exact portrait of their features; the coiners, therefore, had not time to strike a medal for these as they could have done for other emperors who reigned longer. Hence, on the reverse of a medal of Marius, who reigned only three days, there is pacator orbis, which shows that at that time they had reverses ready fabricated, to be applied as occasion might require.

VI. Plated medals, or those which have clefts.· — It has been already remarked, that many true medals are cracked in the edges, owing to the repeated strokes of the hammer, and the little degree of ductility which the metal possesses. This the forgers attempt to imitate by a file; but it is easy to distinguish between the natural and artificial cleft, by means of a small needle. The natural cleft is wide at the extremity, and appears to have a kind of almost imperceptible filaments; the edges of the crack corresponding with each other in a manner which no art can imitate.

The plated medals which have been forged in ancient times were long supposed to be capable of resisting every effort of modern imitation; but latterly some ingenious rogues thought of piercing false medals of silver with a red-hot needle, which gave a blackness to the inside of the coin, and made it appear plated to an injudicious eye. This fraud, however, is easily distinguished by scraping the inside of the metal. But it is nevertheless very difficult to distinguish the forgeries of rude money when not cast; and Mr Pinkerton gives no other direction than to consult a skilful medallist. Indeed, notwithstanding all the directions[7:14:482] already given, this seems to be a resource which cannot by any means with safety be neglected. A real and practical knowledge of coins is only to be acquired by seeing a great number, and comparing the forged with the genuine. It cannot, therefore, be too much recommended to the young connoisseur, who wishes to acquire knowledge in this way, to visit all the sales and cabinets he can, and to look upon all ancient medals with a very microscopic eye. By these means only is to be acquired that ready knowledge which enables one at the first glance to pronounce upon a forgery, however ingenious. Nor let it be concluded from this that the science of medals is uncertain; for no knowledge is more certain and immediate, when it is properly studied by examination of the real objects. A man who buys coins, trusting merely to his theoretic perusal of medallic books, will find himself wofully mistaken. He ought first to study coins, where they can only be studied, in themselves. Nor need it be matter of wonder, or held to imply caprice, that a medallist of skill should at one perception pronounce upon the genuineness or spuriousness of a medal; for the powers of the human eye, employed in certain lines of science, are amazing. Hence a student can distinguish a book amongst a thousand similar and quite alike to every other eye; and, in the same way, the medallist can say in an instant, “This is a true coin, and this is a false,” though to other people no distinction be perceptible.

Forgeries of modern coins and medals, Mr Pinkerton observes, are almost as-numerous as of the ancient. The satirical coin of Louis XII. Perdam Babylonis nomen, is a remarkable instance; the false coin is larger than the true one, and bears the date 1512. The rude coins of the middle ages are very easily forged, and forgeries have accordingly become common. Forged coins of Alfred and other early princes of England have appeared, some of which have been done with great art. The two noted English pennies of Richard I. are of this stamp, and yet have imposed upon Folkes and Snelling, who have published them as genuine in the two best books upon English coins. But they were fabricated by a Mr White of Newgate Street, a noted collector, who contaminated an otherwise fair character by such practices. Such forgeries, though easy, require a skill in the history and coinage of the times, which luckily can hardly fall to the lot of a common Jew or mechanical forger. But the practice is detestable, were no gain proposed; and they who stoop to it must suppose, that to embarrass the path of any science with forgery and futility, implies no infamy. In forgeries of ancient coin, the fiction is perhaps sufficiently atoned for by the vast skill required; and the artist may plausibly allege that his intention was not to deceive, but to excite his utmost powers, by an attempt to rival the ancient masters. But no possible apology can be made for forging the rude money of more modern times. The crime is certainly greater than that which leads the common coiner to the gallows; inasmuch as it is committed with more ease, and the profit is incomparably larger.

VIII— Of the Value of Medals.

All ancient coins and medals, though equally genuine, are not equally valuable. In medals, as well as in everything else, the scarcity of a coin stamps a value upon it which cannot otherwise be derived from its intrinsic worth. There arc usually reckoned four or five degrees of rarity,∣the highest of which is called unique. The cause is generally ascribed to the fewness of the number thrown off originally, or to their having been called in, and recoined in another form. To the former cause Mr Pinkerton ascribes the scarcity of the copper of Otho and the gold of Fescennius Niger; to the latter that of the coinage of Caligula, though this last is not of singular rarity; which shows that even the power of the Roman senate could not annihilate an established money, and that the first cause of rarity, arising from the small quantity originally struck, ought to be regarded as the principal.

In the ancient cities Mr Pinkerton ascribes the scarcity of coin to the poverty or the smallness of the state; but the scarcity of ancient regal and imperial coins arises principally from the shortness of the reign, and sometimes from the superabundance of money before, which rendered it almost unnecessary to coin any money during the reign of the prince. An example of this we have in the scarcity of the shillings of George III. which shows that shortness of reign does not always occasion a scarcity of coin; and thus the coins of Harold II. who did not reign a year, are very numerous, whilst those of Richard I. who reigned ten, are almost unique.

Sometimes the rarest coins lose their value, and become common. This our author ascribes to the high price given for them, which tempts the possessors to bring them to market; but chiefly to the discovering of hoards of them. The former cause operated in regard to Queen Anne’s farthings, some of which formerly sold at five guineas; nay, if we could believe the newspapers, one of them was some years ago sold for L.960; the latter operated in respect to the coins of Canute the Danish king of England, which were very rare till a hoard of them was discovered in the Orkneys. As discoveries of this kind, however, produce a temporary plenty, so, when they are dispersed, the former scarcity returns; whilst, on the other hand, some of the common coins become rare through the mere circumstance of neglect.

As double the number of copper coins of Greek cities are to be met with that there are of silver, the latter are of consequence much more esteemed; but the reverse is the case with those of the Greek princes. All the Greek civic coins of silver are very rare, excepting those of Athens, Corinth, Messana, Dyrrhachium, Massilia, Syracuse, and some others. Of the Greek monarchic coins, the most rare are the tetradrachms of the kings of Syria, the Ptolemies, the sovereigns of Macedonia and Bithynia, excepting those of Alexander the Great and Lysimachus. Those of the kings of Cappadocia are of a small size, and scarcely to be met with. Of those of Numidia and Mauritania, the coins of Juba the father are common; but those of the son, and nephew Ptolemy, are scarce. Coins of the kings of Sicilv, Parthia, and Judaea, are rare; the last very much so. We meet with no coins of the kings of Arabia and Comagene excepting in brass; those of the kings of Bosphorus are in electrum, and a few in brass, but all of them rare; as are likewise those of Philetenis king of Pergamus, and of the kings of Pontus. In the year 1777, a coin of Mithridates sold for L.26. 5s. Didrachms of all kings and cities are scarce, excepting those of Corinth and her colonies; but the gold coins of Philip of Macedonia, Alexander the Great, and Lysimachus, as has already been observed, are common. The silver tetradrachms of all kings bear a very high price. The didrachm of Alexander the Great is one of the scarcest of the smaller Greek silver coins; some of the other princes are not uncommon.

In most cases the copper money of the Greek monarchs is scarce; but that of Hiero I. of Syracuse is uncommonly plentiful, as well as that of several of the Ptolemies.

The most rare of the consular Roman coins are those restored by Trajan; of the others, the gold consular coins are the most rare, and the silver the most common; excepting the coin of Brutus with the cap of liberty, already mentioned, and some others. Some of the Roman imperial coins are very scarce, particularly those of Otho in brass, nor indeed does he occur at all on any coin struck at Rome; but the reason of this may with great probability[7:14:483] be supposed to have been the shortness of his reign. His portrait upon the brass coins of Egypt and Antioch is very bad, as well as almost all the other imperial coins of Greek cities. The best likeness is on his gold and silver coins; the latter of which are very common. The Greek and Egyptian coins are all of small and middling sizes, and have reverses of various kinds; those of Antioch have Latin legends, as well as most of the other imperial coins of Antioch. They have no other reverse but the SC in a wreath, excepting in one instance or two of the large and middle brass, where the inscriptions are in Greek. Latin coins of Otho in brass, with figures on the reverse, are certainly false, though in the cabinet of D’Ennery at Paris there was an Otho in middle brass restored by Titus, which was esteemed genuine by connoisseurs.

The leaden coins at Home are very scarce. Most of them are pieces struck or cast upon occasion of the saturnalia; others are tickets for festivals and exhibitions, both public and private. The common tickets for theatres were made of lead, as were the contomiati, perpetual tickets, like the English silver tickets for the opera. Leaden medallions are also found below the foundations of pillars and other public buildings, where they had been placed to perpetuate the memory of the founders. From the time of Augustus also we find that leaden seals were used. The work of Ticoini upon this subject, entitled Piombi Antiochi, is much recommended by Mr Pinkerton.

The Roman coins, which have been blundered in the manner formerly mentioned, are very rare, and undeservedly valued by the connoisseurs. The blunders in the legends of these coins, which in all probability are the mere effects of accident, have been so far mistaken by some medallists, that they have given rise to imaginary emperors who never existed. A coin of Faustina, which has on the reverse sousτι. s. c. puzzled all the German antiquaries, till at last Klotz gave it the following facetious interpretation: Sine omni utilitate sectamini tantas ineptias.

The hcptarchic coins of England are generally rare, except those called stycas, which are very common, as well as those of Burgred king of Mercia. The coins of Alfred which bear his bust are scarce, and his other money much more so. Those of Hardyknute are so rare that it was even denied that they bad an existence; but Mr Pinkerton informs us that there are three in the British Museum, upon all of which the name Hartricanut is quite legible. No English coins of King John are to be met with, though there are some Irish ones; and only French coins of Richard I. are met with. “Leake,” says Pinkerton, “made a strange blunder, in ascribing coins of different kings with two faces, and otherwise spoiled in the stamping, to this"prince, in which, as usual, he has been followed by a misled number.”

Coins of Alexander II. of Scotland are rather scarce, but those of Alexander III. are more plentiful. Those of John Baliol are rare, and none of Edward Baliol are now to be found.

IX.— Arrangement of Medals, with the Instruction to be derived from them.

Having thus given a full account of every thing generally relating to medals, we now proceed to give some particulars respecting their arrangement, and the entertainment which a medallist may expect from the trouble and expense he incurs in making a collection.

It has already been observed, that one of the principal uses of medals is the elucidation of ancient history. Hence the arrangement of his medals is the first thing that must occur in the formation of a cabinet. The most ancient medals with which we are acquainted are those of Alexander I. of Macedonia, who began to reign about 501 years be fore Christ. The series ought consequently to commence with him, and to be succeeded by the medalsof Sicily, Caria, Cyprus, Heraclia, and Pontus. Then follow Egypt, Syria, the Cimmerian Bosphorus, Thrace, Bithynia, Parthia, Armenia, Damascus, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, Pergamus, Galatia, Cilicia, Sparta, Paeonia, Epirus, Illyricum, Gaul, and the Alps, including the space of time from Alexander the Great to the birth of Christ, and which is to be accounted the third medallic series of ancient monarchs. The last series comes down to the fourth century, including some of the monarchs of Thrace, Bosphorus, and Parthia, with those of Comagene, Edessa or Osrhoene, Mauritania, and Judaea. A most distinct series is formed by the Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to the destruction of Rome by the Goths; nay, for a much longer period, were it not that towards the latter part of it the coins become so barbarous as to destroy the beauty of the collection. Many series may be formed of modern potentates.

By means of medals we can with great certainty determine the various ornaments worn by ancient princes as badges of distinction. The Grecian kings have generally the diadem, without any other ornament; and though in general the side of the face is presented to view, yet in some very ancient Greek and Roman consular coins, full faces of excellent workmanship are met with. On several coins also two or three faces are to be seen, and these are always accounted very valuable.

The diadem, which was.no more than a ribbon tied round the head with a floating knot behind, adorns all the Grecian princes from first to last, and is almost an infallible mark of sovereign power. In the Roman consular coins it is seen in conjunction with Numa and Ancus, but never afterwards till the time of Licinius, the colleague of Constantine. Diocletian, indeed, according to Mr Gibbon, first wore the diadem; but his portrait upon coins is never adorned with it. So great an aversion had the Romans to kingly power, that they rather allowed their emperors to assume the radiated crown, the symbol of divinity, than to wear a diadem; but after the time of Constantine it becomes common. The radiated crown appears first op the posthumous coins of Augustus as a mark of deification, but in somewhat more than a century it became common.

The laurel crown, at first a badge of conquest, was afterwards permitted by the senate to be worn by Julius Caesar, in order to hide the baldness of his head. From him all the emperors appear with it on their medals, even to our own times. In the lower empire the crown is sometimes held by a hand above the head, as a mark of piety. Besides these, the naval, mural, and civic crowns appear on the medals both of emperors and of other eminent men, being intended to denote their great actions. The laurel crown is also sometimes worn by the Greek princes. The Arsacidaeof Parthia wear a kind of sash round the head, with their hair in rows of curls like a wig. The Armenian kings have the tiara, a kind of cap which was esteemed as the badge of imperial power in the East. Conical caps are seen upon the medals of Xerxes, a petty prince of Armenia, and those of Juba the father, the former having a diadem around it.

The impious vanity of Alexander and his successors, in assuming divine honours, is manifest on their medals, where various symbols of divinity are met with. Some of them have the horn behind their ear, either to denote their strength, or that they were the successors of Alexander, to whom this badge might be applied as the son of Jupiter Ammon. This, however, Mr Pinkerton observes, is the only one of those symbols which certainly denote an earthly sovereign, it being doubtful whether the rest are not all figures of gods. According to Eckhet, even the horn and diadem belong to Bacchus, who invented the latter to [7:14:484]cure his v headache; and, according to the same author, the only monarch who appears on coins with the horn is Lysimachus. We are informed, however, by Plutarch, that Pyrrhus had a crest of goats’ horns to his helmet; and the goat, we know, was a symbol of Macedonia. Perhaps the successors of Alexander wore this badge of the horn in consequence. The helmet likewise frequently appears on the heads of sovereigns, and Constantine I. has helmets of various forms curiously ornamented.

The diadem is worn by most of the Greek queens, as by Orodaltis, daughter of Lycomedes, king of Bithynia; and although the Roman empresses never appear with it, yet this is more than compensated by the variety of their headdresses. Sometimes the bust of an empress is supported by a crescent, to imply that she was the moon, as her husband was the sun of the state. The toga or veil drawn over the face, at first implied that the person was invested with the pontifical office; and accordingly we find it on the busts of Julius Caesar, while pontifex maximus. It likewise implies the augurship, the augurs having a particular kind of gown called lana, with which they covered their heads when observing an omen. In latter times this implies only consecration, and is common in coins of empresses. It is first met with on the coins of Claudius Gothicus as the mark of the consecration of an emperor. The nimbus or glory, now appropriated to saints, has been already mentioned. It is as ancient as Augustus, but is not to be met with upon many of the imperial medals, even after it began to be appropriated to them. There is a curious coin, which has upon the reverse of the common piece, with the β head of Rome, Urbs Roma, in large brass; Constantine L sitting amidst Victories and Genii, with a triple crown upon his head for Europe, Asia, and Africa, with the legend Securitas Romae.

In general only the bust is given upon medals, though sometimes half the body or more, in which latter case the hands often appear with ensigns of majesty in them, such as the globe, said to have been introduced by Augustus as a symbol of universal dominion; the sceptre, sometimes confounded with the consular staff; a roll of parchment, the symbol of legislative power; and an handkerchief, expressive of the power over the public games, where the emperor gave the signal. Some princes hold a thunderbolt, showing that their power on earth was equal to that of Jupiter in heaven, while others hold an image of Victory.

Medals likewise afford a good number of portraits of illustrious men; but they cannot easily be arranged in chronological order, so that a series of them is not to be expected. It is likewise vain to attempt the formation of a series of gods and goddesses as found upon ancient coins. Mr Pinkerton thinks it much better to arrange them under the several cities or kings whose names they bear. A collection of the portraits of illustrious men may likewise be formed from medals of modern date.

The reverses of ancient Greek and Roman coins afford an infinite variety of instruction and amusement. They contain figures of deities at full length, with their attributes and symbols, public symbols and diversions, plants, animals, &c.; and in short almost every object of nature or art. Some have the portrait of the queen, son, or daughter of the prince whose image appears on the face obverse; and these are esteemed highly by antiquaries, not only because every coin stamped with portraits on both sides is accounted valuable, but because they render it certain that the person represented on the reverse was the wife, son, or daughter of him who appears on the obverse; by which means they assist greatly in the adjustment of a series. Some, however, with two portraits are common, as Augustus, the reverse of Caligula; and Marcus Aurelius, the reverse of Antoninus Pius.

We find more art and more design in the reverses of the Roman medals than in those of the Greek; but, on the other hand, the latter exhibit more exquisite relief and workmanship. The very ancient coins have no reverses, excepting a rude mark struck into the metal, resembling that of an instrument with four blunt points upon which the coin was struck, and this was owing to its having been fixed by such an instrument on that side to receive the impression upon the other. To this succeeds the image of a dolphin, or some small animal, in one of the departments of the rude mark, or in a hollow square; and this again is succeeded by a more perfect image, without any mark of the hollow square. Some of the Greek coins are hollow in the reverse, as those of Caulonia, Crotona, Metapontum, and some other ancient cities of Magna Graecia. About 500 before Christ perfect reverses appear on the Greek coins, of exquisite relief and workmanship. “The very muscles of men and animals,” says Pinkerton, “are seen, and will bear inspection with the largest magnifier as ancient gems. The ancients certainly had not eyes different from ours, and it is clear that they must have magnified objects. A drop of water forms a microscope, and it is probable this was the only one of the ancients. To Greek artists we are indebted for the beauty of the Roman imperial coins, and these are so highly finished, that on some reverses, as on that of Nero’s de-cursion, the adventus and progressio of various emperors, the fundator pacis of Severus, the features of the emperor, riding or walking, are as exact as upon the obverse. But though the best Grèek artists were called to Rome, yet the Greek coins under the Roman emperors are sometimes well executed, and always full of variety and curiosity. No Roman or Etruscan coins have been found of the globular form, or indented on the reverse like the early Greek. The first Greek are small pieces of silver, whilst the Roman are large masses of copper. The former are struck, the latter cast in moulds. The reverses of the Roman coins are very uniform, the prow of a ship, a car, or the like, till about the year 100 before Christ, when various reverses appear on their consular coins in all metals. The variety and beauty of the Roman imperial reverses are well known. The medallist values much those which have a number of figures, as the Puellae Faustinianae of Faustina, a gold coin no larger than a sixpence, which has twelve figures; that of Trajan, regna assignata, has four; the congiarium of Nerva five; the allocution of Trajan seven; that of Hadrian ten; and that of Probus twelve. Some Roman medals have small figures on both sides, as the Apollini sancto of Julian II. But these have not received any peculiar name amongst the medallists. Others have only a reverse, as the noted spintriati, which have numerals I., II., &c. on the obverse.

The names of the deities represented on the reverses of Greek coins are never expressed; perhaps, as Mr Pinkerton supposes, out of piety, a symbolical representation of their attributes being all that they thought proper to delineate; but the Roman coins always express the name, frequently with an adjunct, as Veneri Victrici. In others, the name of the emperor or empress is added; as Pudici-tiae Augustae, round an image of modesty, and Virtus Augusti, a legend for an image of virtue. The principal symbols of the divine attributes to be met with upon the Greek medals are as follow:

1. Jupiter is known on the coins of Alexander the Great by his eagle and thunderbolts; but when the figure occurs only on the obverses of coins, he is distinguished by a laurel crown, and placid bearded countenance. Jupiter Ammon is known by the ram’s horn twisting round his ear; a symbol of power and strength assumed by some of the successors of Alexander the Great, particularly by Lysimachus. 2. Neptune is known by his trident, his dolphin, or his being drawn by sea-horses; but he is seldom met with on the Grecian coins. 3. Apollo is distinguished by a harp, a branch of laurel, or a tripod, and sometimes by a bow and arrows. In the character of the sun his head is surrounded[7:14:485] with rays; but when the bust only occurs, he has a fair young face, and is crowned with laurel. He is frequently found on the coins of the Syrian princes. 4. Mars is distinguished by his armour, and sometimes by a trophy on his shoulders. His head is armed with a helmet, and he has a ferocious countenance. 5. Mercury is represented as ayouth, with a small cap on his head, and wings behind his ears and on his feet. He is known by the cap, which resembles a small hat, and the wings. He appears also with the caduceus, or wand twined with serpents, and the marsupium or purse, which he holds in his hand. 6. Aesculapius is known by his bushy beard, and his leaning on a club with a serpent twisted round it. He sometimes occurs with his wifeHygeia or Health, and their son Telesphorus or Convalescence between them. 7. Bacchus is known by his crown of ivy or vine, his diadem and horn, with a tiger and satyrs around him. 8. The figure of Hercules is common on the coins of Alexander the Great, and has frequently been mistaken for that of the prince himself. He appears sometimes as a youth, and sometimes with a beard. He is known by the club, the lion’s skin, and remarkable apparent strength; sometimes he has a cup in his hand; and a poplar tree, as a symbol of vigour, is sometimes added to the portrait. 9. The Egyptian Serapis is known by his bushy beard, and a measure upon his head. 10. Apis is delineated in the form of a bull, with a flower of the lotus, the water-lily of the Nile, supposed by Macrobius to be a symbol of creation; and Jamblichus tells us, that Osiris was thought to have his throne in it. 11. Harpocrates, the god of silence, appears with his finger on his mouth; sometimes with the systrum in his left hand, a symbol common to most of the Egyptian deities. 12. Canopus, another Egyptian deity, appears in the shape of a human head placed on a kind of pitcher. “This deified pitcher,” says Mr Pinkerton, “seems to refer to an anecdote of ancient superstition, which, I believe, is recorded by Plutarch. It seems some Persian and Egyptian priests had a contest which of their deities had the superiority. The Egyptian said, that a single vase, sacred to Serapis, would extinguish the whole power of the Persian deity of fire. The experiment was tried; and the wily Egyptian, boring holes in the vase and stopping them with wax, afterwards filled the vase with water, which, gushing through the holes as the wax melted, extinguished the Persian deity. Hence the vase was deified.” 13. The Holy Senate and Holy People appear frequently on the Greek imperial coins, sometimes represented as old men with beards, at others as youths.

The goddesses represented on medals are the following. 1. Juno, represented by a beautiful young woman, sometimes with a diadem, sometimes without any badge, which is reckoned a sufficient distinction, as the other goddesses all wear badges. Sometimes she appears as the goddess of marriage, and is then veiled to the middle, and sometimes to the toes. She is known by the peacock, a bird sacred to her, from the fable of Argus. 2. Minerva is very common upon the coins of Alexander the Great, and her bust has been mistaken by the celebrated painter Le Brun for the hero himself. She is very easily distinguished by the helmet. Her symbols are, her armour; the spear in her right hand, the aegis, with‘a Medusa’s head, in her left, and an owl commonly standing by her. 3. Diana of Ephesus is commonly represented on the Greek imperial coins, and appears with a great number of breasts, supposed to denote universal nature. She is supported by two deer, ¼ and carries a pannier of fruit upon her head. The bust of this goddess is known by the crescent upon her brow, and sometimes by the bow and quiver at her side. 4. Venus is known by an apple, the prize of beauty, in her hand. Sometimes she is distinguished only by her total want of dress; but she is always to be known by her extraordinary beauty, and is sometimes adorned with pearls about the neck. 5. Cupid is sometimes met with on the Syrian coins, and is known by his infancy and wings. 6. Cybele is known by a turreted crown and lion, or is seen in a chariot drawn by lions. 7. Ceres is known by her garland of wheat, and is common on the Sicilian coins, that island being remarkable for its fertility. Sometimes she has two serpents by her, and sometimes she is drawn by them in a chariot. She carries in her hands the torches with which she is fabled to have gone in search of her daughter Proserpine. 8. Proserpine herself is sometimes met with upon coins, with the name of κοgη, or the girl. 9. The Egyptian Isis has a bud or flower on her head, a symbol of the perpetual bloom of the inhabitants of heaven. She carries also a systrum in her hand. 10. The Sidonian Astarte appears on a globe supported on a chariot with two wheels, drawn by two horses.

These are the deities most commonly represented on the Greek coins. The more uncommon are, Saturn with his scythe, or with a hook on the Heraclian coins; and Vulean with his tongs, on the reverse of a coin of Thyatira,· represented at work in the presence of Minerva. Adranus, a Sicilian god, is sometimes represented on coins with a dog. Anubis, an Egyptian deity, has a dog’s head. Atis is known by his Phrygian bonnet; Castor and Pollux by a star upon the head of each; Dis, by his old face, dishevelled hair and beard, and a hook; Flora by her crown of flowers; Nemesis by her wheel; and Pan by his horns and ears belonging to some kind of beast.

There are likewise to be found on medals many different symbols by themselves, the most remarkable of which we shall give in the following table, with their signification :—
[table]
[7:14:486]
[table]

The legends impressed upon medals are designed as explanations of them; but as the compass of even the largest coins does not admit of any great length of inscription, ithas always been found necessary to use abbreviations; and in readily deciphering these consists a considerable part of the difficulty of the science. This, however, is greater in the Roman than in the Greek medals; for the Greeks commonly insert as much of the word as is sufficient to enable us easily to understand its meaning; but it is common for those who attempt to explain letters which do not often occur, to fall into very ridiculous errors. Of this Mr Pinkerton gives a most remarkable instance in Fortunius Licetus, a learned man, who finding upon a coin of Hadrian the letters A∙ IΔ, signifying the 14th year of that emperor’s reign, imagined that they signified Lucernas invenit Delta ; “Delta invented lanthorns;” and thence ascribed the origin of lanthorns to the Egyptians. Tables explaining the meaning of the abbreviations found upon medals have been published by Patin, Ursatus, and others.

X.— Of Medallions, &c.

Besides the ordinary coins of the ancients, which passed in common circulation through the country, there were others of a larger size, which are now termed medallions. These were struck on the commencement of the reign of a new emperor, and on other solemn occasions; and frequently also, by the Greeks in particular, as monuments of gratitude or of flattery. Sometimes they were mere trial or pattern, pieces; and, after the time of Maximian, these abound, with the words Tres Monetae on the reverse. The common opinion is, that all the Roman pieces of gold exceeding the denarius aureus, all in silver exceeding the denarius, and all in brass exceeding the sestertius, went under the denomination qï medallions ; but Mr Pinkerton thinks that many of these large pieces passed in circulation, though not very commonly, as our five and two guineapieces, silver crowns, &c. do or did in this country. The finest medallions were presented by the mint-masters to the emperor, and by the emperor to his friends, as specimens of elegant workmanship. The best we have at present are of brass, and many of them composed of two sorts of metal, the centre being copper, with a ring of brass around it, or the contrary; and the inscription is sometimes confined to one of the metals, sometimes not. There is a remarkable difference between the Greek and Roman medallions in point of thickness; the latter being frequently three or four lines thick, whilst the former seldom exceed one. Very few medallions, however, were struck by the Greeks before the time of the Roman emperors; but the Greek medallions of the emperors are more numerous than those of the Romans themselves. All these pieces, however, are of such high price that very few private individuals are able to purchase them. In the last century Christina queen of Sweden procured about 300. In the king of France’s collection there are 1200, a number formerly supposed not to exist; and Dr Hunter’s collection contains about 400, exclusive of the Egyptian. Besides these large pieces, there are smaller ones, of a size somewhat larger than our half-crowns; which by Italian medallists are called medaglioncini, or small medallions. They are still scarcer than the large kind.

There is still a third kind, which have almost escaped the notice of medallists, viz. the small coins or missilia scattered amongst the people on solemn occasions; such as those struck for the slaves on account of the saturnalia, counters for gaming, tickets for baths and feasts, and tokens in copper and in lead. These are distinguished by Mr Pinkerton by the name of medalets. Many, or perhaps almost all, of those struck for the saturnalia were satirical, as the slaves had then a license to ridicule not only their masters, but any person whatsoever. Mr Pinkerton mentions one of the most common pieces of this kind, which has on the obverse the head of an old woman veiled, with a laurel crown; the 'reverse contains only SC within a wreath. Baudelot is of opinion that it is the head of Acca Laurentia, the nurse of Romulus, to whom a festival was ordained. “Perhaps,” says Pinkerton, “it was struck in ridicule of Julius Caesar; for the manner of the laurel crown, and its high appearance over the head, perfectly resemble that of Julius on his coins.” Some have a ship upon one side; on the reverse, T, or a cross, which was the image of Priapus, and occasioned many false invectives against the first Christians, who paid profound respect to the cross. Soine pieces have the heads of the emperors upon one side; on the reverse only numerals, III. IV. V. &c.,and the noted spintriati of Tacitus. Both these kinds appear to have been tickets for the baths, as the number seems to denote the particular bath. Some have the head of a girl with a vessel used at the baths in her hand. The spintriati are so immodest that few of them will bear mention. But some are merely ludicrous; as one which has an ass with a bell about his neck, and a soldier riding him; and another with two figures hoisting a woman in a basket into the air. Of those that will just bear mention, is a man with titles around him, as chief of the games, and a woman in ridicule of the modest bath-girl above mentioned. There is also one marked XIX, on which appears an imperator triumphing in a car, [7:14:487]which is placed on the back of a camel; and behind the imperator is a monkey mimicking him.

A fourth class of medals are called contomiati, from the Italian contomiatο, encircled; because of the hollow circle which commonly runs around them. They are distinguished from medallions by their thinness, faint relief, reverses sometimes in relief, sometimes hollow, and in general by the inferiority in their workmanship. The opinions of medallists concerning these pieces are very various. Some suppose them to have been struck by Gallienus, to the memory of illustrious men and celebrated athletae, at the time when he caused all the consecration coins of his predecessors to be restored; and others ascribe their invention to Greece, &c.; but Mr Pinkerton is of opinion that they were only tickets for places at public games. Many of them, notwithstanding their inferior workmanship, are very valuable on account of their preserving the portraits of some illustrious authors of antiquity, which are nowhere else to be found. Much dependence, however, cannot be put on the portraits of Greek authors and eminent men found upon some of them; for although we know that the busts of Sallust, Horace, &c. must have been struck when their persons were fresh in the memory of the artists, yet it was otherwise with Homer, Solon, Pythagoras, &c. who are to be - found upon some of them. Even these, however, arc valuable, as being ancient and perhaps traditional portraits of these great men. The last whose portraits are supposed to have been delineated in this way are Apollonius Tyaneus who flourished in the time of Domitian, and Apuleius in that of Marcus Antoninus. Mr Pinkerton thinks it a confirmation of his opinion concerning these medals, that the reverses always contain some device alluding to public games, as that of a charioteer driving a chariot, &c.

XI.— Directions for forming Cabinets.

We must now proceed to the last part of our subject, viz. that of giving directions for the formation of cabinets. As we have already seen that the formation of any one must be attended with very considerable expense, it is necessary for every one who attempts this to proportion the cabinet to his own circumstances. There are, properly speaking, three kinds of cabinets. 1. Those meant to contain a coin of every sort that has been issued from the mint in every age and country; but this, which may be called the large and complete cabinet, is not to be purchased by private persons. That of Dr Hunter, now in the possession of the university of Glasgow, is perhaps one of the best private cabinets ever known. 2. The smaller cabinet may be supposed to consist only of middle and small Roman brass, English pennies, groats, &c., with a few medals of the more valuable kind. 3. The smallest kind is called a casket of medals, and does not consist of above 1000 at most of various kinds; and consequently the expense must depend upon the pleasure of the proprietor.

In the formation of the grand cabinet, it must be observed that the Greek medals of every denomination do not admit of any arrangement by the metals like the Roman; no regular series of this description being met with even in the most opulent cabinets. Hence in all collections the civic coins are ranged according to an alphabetical, and the monarchic in a chronological order. The same rule is to be observed in the Roman consular medals; they arc ranged, like the coins of the Greek cities, in an alphabetical series of the families. The Roman imperial coins are those only which are capable of being arranged according to sizes and metals. Even from this must be excepted the minimi, or the very smallest coins, which are so scarce that the only regular series of them in the world is that belonging to the king of Spain, which was formed by a most skilful French medallist, and consists of all the metals· The arrangement of a grand cabinet, according to Mr Pinkerton, is as follows. 1. The coins of cities and of free states in alphabetical order, whether using Greek, Roman, Punic, Etruscan, or Spanish characters. 2. Kings' in chronological series, both as to foundation of empire and seniority of reign. 3. Heroes, heroines, founders of empires, and cities. 4. Other illustrious persons. 5. Roman asses. 6. Coins of families, commonly called consular. 7. Imperial medallions. 8. Imperial gold. 9. Imperial minimi of all metals. 10. Imperial silver. 11. Imperial first brass. 12. Second brass. 13. Third brass. 14. Colonial coins, which are all of brass. 15. Greek cities under the emperors, of all metals and sizes. In a smaller cabinet they may be put with the Roman, according to their metal and size. Those without the emperor’s head go to class 1, though struck in Roman times. 16. Egyptian coins struck under the Roman emperors, of all metals and sizes. They are mostly of a base metal called by the French patin; it is a kind of pot-metal or brittle brass. 17. Contomiati, or ticket medals. 18. Coins of Gothic princes, &c. inscribed with Roman characters. 19. Coins of southern nations using uncommon alphabets; as the Persian, Punic, Etruscan, and Spanish. 20. Coins of northern nations using uncommon characters; as the Runic and German.

In the modern part no series can be formed of copper that will reach backwards above two centuries; but sequences (chronological series) of gold and silver may be arranged of all the different empires, kingdoms, and states, as far as their several coinages will allow. Those of England and France will be the most perfect. Modern silver is commonly arranged in three sequences; the dollar, the groat, and the penny sizes. The medals of each modern country ought of course to be separated; though it is best to arrange each set in chronological order, let their size of metal be what it may. It may be remarked here, that our modern medals of the size of a tea-saucer are only so many monuments of barbarism. The ancient medallions are almost universally but little larger than our crownpiece, though three or four of them may extend to about two inches diameter, but very many modem medals to four inches and more. A large medal always indicates an ignorant prince or an ignorant artist. Into the size of a crown-piece the ancients threw more miracles in this way than will ever be found in such monstrous productions.

These directions will likewise apply to the formation of a cabinet of the second kind; but if the collector means to form a series of large Roman brass, he will find the coins of four or five emperors so scarce as not to be attainable in that series, at any price. He must therefore supply their places with middle brass, as is allowed with regard to Otho, even in the best cabinets; there not being above three coins of that emperor in large brass known in the world, whereas of the middle brass two or three hundred are still extant. For this reason Mr Pinkerton concludes, that in cabinets of the second class, the collector may mingle the large and second^ brass together as he thinks proper, in order to save expense; though it would not do so well to unite such disproportionate sizes as the large and small. “In the small sequence, however,” says he, “there can be no harm in his mixing gold, silver, and brass, as chance or curiosity may lead him to purchase any of these metals. And though your starched bigoted medallists may sneer because such a sequence would controvert his formal and narrow way of thinking, common sense will authorize us to laugh at the pedant in our turn, and to pronounce such a series more various, rich, and interesting, than if the collector had arranged only one metal, and rejected a curious article because he did not collect gold, or-silver. In like manner, if, in the modern part of the smaller cabinet, any coin of a series is of high price, or of [7:14:488]bad impression, there can be no impropriety in puttinθ∙ another of the same reign, which is cheaper or better executed, though of a different denomination or of a little larger size. In short, the collector has no rules but in the Greek cities and Roman families, and to observe alphabetical order and chronology in every thing else.