much more distinct, but mine is, I believe, of exactly the same form, though the loop of the P in TYP is now so obscure, that one may be doubtful if it ever existed. The in my specimen below the monogram is also faint, but clearly traceable; this letter, whatever be its meaning, occurs also on a tetradrachm of Ptolemy, in my cabinet, struck at Tyre, having the same monogram as well as the club, and the date A, 30, besides another monogram. My specimen has suffered somewhat by circulation and by filing and scratching; the Museum specimen is much finer, but some knave in ancient or modern times has cut a small slice of gold from the obverse, and, what is much worse, from the reverse also. Yet probably no letter or adjunct has been carried away; the A lies between the fillet and the stem; the AA in my coin is in the same position, and there is just enough of the original surface on the other side of the fillet in the Museum specimen to lead me to think that no letter was ever there.

I understand from my friend Mr. Reichardt, that his cabinet contains a coin similar to my own, which possesses unusual interest, because it indicates the place of mintage of one of these splendid gold pieces. Mionnet does not mention any octodrachm of Arsinoë which bears the monogram of Tyre. Others of the Ptolemies struck coins there both in gold and also in silver.

CHURCHILL BABINGTON.

X.

REMARKS IN REPLY TO THE NEW

OBSERVATIONS

ON "JEWISH NUMISMATICS

BY M. F. DE SAULCY,

A PROPOS OF THE WORK ENTITLED HISTORY OF JEWISH COINAGE AND MONEY IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT.

It is with some feeling of regret that I feel myself forced to make some reply to the strictures of M. de Saulcy on the various attributions of the Jewish coins preserved in different Museums and in private collections. Without doubt M. de Saulcy was the first who caused this neglected branch in coin history to be carefully studied of late years, and furnished an inducement to numismatists to take an interest in Jewish coins; but M. de Sauley, I think, cannot be congratulated on the manner in which he made use of the ample materials before him. Criticism, and very severe criticism, did his volume receive in Italy; in Germany no better fortune attended it; and in England,

1 Revue Numismatique, 1864, p. 370, seq.; 1865, p. 29, seq. It may be as well also to mention that M. de Saulcy made some similar observations à propos of Sig. Cavedoni's memoir, "Appendice alla Numismatica Biblica" (Modena, 1855), in the Revue Numismatique for 1857, p. 280, in which he concludes by expressing his conviction that Sig. Cavedoni would change his views on many points which appeared evident to him when writing his "Appendix." It does not, however, appear that either Sig. Cavedoni or any other numismatists have altered their opinions on the main points at issue.

those few numismatists who had ventured to consider the subject, though some were at first attracted by his new attributions, rejected entirely nearly all his theories.

2

It is not then surprising that we now find him a little bitter against his fellow-labourers, but at the same time it is next to impossible to understand why it is that he, and he alone, will still persist in maintaining attributions refuted by everybody. To quote the statement of a wellknown writer on this subject: "Thus, whilst De Saulcy in 1857 declared that he adhered more firmly than ever to his new classification, and that there was no one, with the exception of my unfortunate self, who had not yielded assent to his novel distribution of these monuments, the flower of the learned numismatists of Germany, England, Spain, and Italy, namely, Levy, Reichardt,* Mommsen, Ewald, Poole,' Madden,8 Queipo, and Gar

9

2 Celestino Cavedoni, "Le principali Questioni riguardanti la Numismatica Giudaica diffinitivamente decise," published in the Opuscoli Religiosi, Letterari e Morali, vol. v., Series ii. Modena, 1865.

3 "Geschichte der Jüdischen Münzen." "But this collector himself (De Saulcy) seems to have been so completely dazzled by excessive abundance, that he has erred entirely from the truth in taking away from Simon the Maccabee all the coins which had hitherto been ascribed to him, and in giving them to Jaddua, high-priest at the time of Alexander the Great" (p. 113).

4 Num. Chron., N.S., vol. iv. p. 174.

5 "Geschichte der Römischen Münzen." Though Mommsen quotes De Saulcy's work for weights, &c., he entirely ignores his attribution (p. 717).

6 See the Introduction in "History of Jewish Coinage." 7 Art. " Money," in Dr. Smith's "Dict. of the Bible." 8" History of Jewish Coinage and of Money in Old and New Testaments;" Art. "Money," in "Kitto's Bibl. Cyclopædia," new ed.

"Mais

9"Essai sur les Systèmes Métriques et Monétaires.” tout en avouant notre incompétence sur ces matières, nous craignons que M. de Saulcy, en voulant résoudre la difficulté

10

rucci, supported the classification of Bayer and Eckhel, followed and defended by me. The specious innovation of the French academician dazzled for a period of ten years those who were ill-informed, or those who were his partisans; but now that the work of Madden has been published and well-considered, it must of necessity fall to the ground. So true is the sentence of Tully, that opinionum commenta delet dies."

que présente la classification des sicles Hébreux d'après Bayer, n'ait fait que la déplacer" (vol i. p. 546). In a letter to Sig. Cavedoni, M. Queipo writes, "M. de Saulcy, avec lequel j'eu l'honneur de causser sur cette matière, reconnait lui-même que son opinion n'est qu'une simple hypothèse." (Cavedoni, "Nuovi Studi," etc., p. 4, note.)

10 Vetri Cimiteriali." In the first edition of this work Sig. Garrucci says, 'I agree with Cavedoni, and not with De Sauley's new classification" (p. 16). In his second edition he says in place of this (p. 48), “I cannot follow the new classification of De Sauley, which attributes the coins of the fourth year of the Liberation of Israel, with a cedar between two lulab, or else with a lulab between two cedars, to the high-priest Jaddua, neither can I agree with the classification which assigns them to the fourth year of Simon; for which I give as a reason the enormous difference of the palæography and of the manner of marking the year-not by a sign, as in the first, second, and third years, but at length." This objection, as regards these copper coins only, is of no value, and as Cavedoni ("Principali Questioni," &c., p. 6, note) shows, Garrucci is not sufficiently exact in putting "Liberation" instead of "Redemption," and the " enormous difference of the palæography ' consists mainly in the form of the Scin, which on the smaller copper coins is sometimes angular (W), and sometimes rounded (W), this latter form also occurring on the coins of John Hyrcanus ("Hist. of Jewish Coinage," p. 58). Cavedoni (l. c.) further says, In the shekels of the years I., II., III., and IV., the years are marked by sign by reason of the restricted space of the area, and in the copper coins, where the engraver had the whole of the space round the type, he marked at full length the 'fourth year. In like manner, in the coins of the two revolts of the Jews, the years are contemporaneously marked sometimes in cipher, sometimes at full length, according as the engraver had more or less space at his disposal."

De Sauley has written two papers, the first embracing the Jewish coinage from its earliest issue to the colonial coins struck at Jerusalem; the second containing a thorough examination of the new attributions and suggestions of Dr. Levy, of Breslau. It is much to be regretted that De Saulcy concludes the former as follows: "En résumé, vous voyez que la science des monnaies Judaïques a progressé. Elle progressera encore, n'en doutons pas, lorsque les numismatistes que s'en occupent regarderont comme peu dignes d'eux les critiques malveillantes, et mettront leur amour-propre de côté, pour servir leurs efforts à l'avancement de la science, et non a leur gloriole personelle." The second paper is very different, and well worthy the attention of numismatists.

With these brief remarks I pass on to the examination of the observations of De Saulcy.

SHEKELS AND HALF-SHEKELS.

M. de Sauley holds more firmly than ever to his original idea, that these shekels and half-shekels were issued during the autonomy obtained by the high-priest Jaddua from Alexander the Great. He still considers that the metal, types, style, legends, and fabric are in flagrant opposition to their attribution to Simon Maccabæus, as there must be an interval of nearly two centuries between their emission and the paltry pieces of John Hyrcanus ; hence the permission granted to Simon by Antiochus has not the slightest value in his eyes. Moreover, he is at a loss to understand how it is that John Hyrcanus only struck minute copper pieces, and with his name, whilst Simon only issued silver without his name; he, to whom permission had been granted to strike money in his own name (percussuram proprii numismatis); and also how it