Coins, although they confirm history, rarely correct it, and never very greatly. The earliest belong to a time and to nations as to which we are not otherwise wholly ignorant, and they do not afford us that precise information which would fill in any important details of the meagre sketch of contemporary history. We gain from them scarcely any direct historical information, except that certain cities or princes issued money. When in later times the devices and inscriptions of the coins give more detailed information, history is far fuller and clearer, so that the numismatic evidence is rarely more than corroborative. There are, indeed, some remarkable exceptions to this rule, as in the case of the Bactrian coins, which have supplied the outlines of a portion of history which was otherwise almost wholly lost. The value of the corroborative evidence afforded by coins must not, however, be overlooked. It chiefly relates to chronology, although it also adds to our knowledge of the pedigrees of royal houses. But perhaps the most interesting manner in which coins and medals illustrate history is in their bearing contemporary, or nearly contemporary, portraits of the most famous kings and captains, from the time of the first successors of Alexander the Great to the present age, whereas pictures do not afford portraits in any number before the latter part of the Middle Ages; and works of sculpture, although occupying in this respect the same place as coins in the last-mentioned period and under the Roman empire, are neither so numerous nor so authentic. There is no more delightful companion in historical reading than a cabinet of coins and medals. The strength and energy of Alexander, the ferocity of Mithradates, the philosophic calmness of Antoninus, the obstinate ferocity of Nero, and the brutality of Caracalla are as plain on the coins as in the pages of history. The numismatic portraits of the time following the founding of Constantinople have less individuality; but after the revival of art they recover that quality, and maintain it to our own day, although executed in very different styles from those of antiquity. From this last class we can form a series of portraits more complete and not less interesting than that of the ancient period.

While coins and medals thus illustrate the events of history, they have an equally direct bearing on the belief of the nations by which they were issued; and in this reference lies no small part of their value in connexion with history. The mythology of the Greeks, not having been fixed in sacred writings, nor regulated by a dominant priesthood, but having grown out of the different beliefs of various tribes and isolated settlements, and having been allowed to form itself comparatively without check, can scarcely be learned from ancient books. Their writers give us but a partial or special view of it, and modern authors, in their attempts to systematize, have often but increased the confusion. The Greek coins, whether of kings or cities, until the death of Alexander, bear sacred subjects only. Afterwards, on the regal coins, the king’s head usually occupies the obverse and a sacred subject is placed on the reverse. The coins of Greek cities under the empire have usually an imperial portrait and a reverse type usually mythological. The whole class thus affords us invaluable evidence for the reconstruction of Greek mythology. We have nowhere else so complete a series of the different types under which the divinities were represented. There are in modern galleries very few statues of Greek divinities, including such as were intended for architectural decoration, which are in good style, fairly preserved, and untouched by modern restorers. If to these we add reliefs of the same class, and the best Graeco-Roman copies, we can scarcely form a complete series of the various representations of these divinities. The coins, ⅛owever, supply us with the series we desire, and we may select types which are not merely of good work, but of the finest. The mythology of ancient Italy, as distinct from that of the Greek colonies of Italy, is not so fully illustrated by the coins of the country, because these are for the most part of Greek design. There are, however, some remarkable exceptions, especially in the money of the Roman commonwealth, the greater number of the types of which are of a local character, including many that refer to the myths and traditions of the earliest days of the city. The coins of the empire are especially important, as bearing representations of those personifications of an allegorical character to which the influence of philosophy gave great prominence in Roman mythology.

Coins are scarcely less valuable in relation to geography than to history. The position of towns on the sea or on rivers, the race of their inhabitants, and many similar particulars are positively fixed on numismatic evidence. The information that coins convey as to the details of the history of towns and countries has a necessary connexion with geography, as has also their illustration of local forms of worship. The representations of natural productions on ancient money are of special importance, and afford assistance to the lexicographer. This is particularly the case with the Greek coins, on which these objects are frequently portrayed with great fidelity. We must recollect, however, that the nomenclature of the ancients was vague, and frequently comprised very different objects under one appellation, and that therefore we may find very different representations corresponding to the same name.

The art of sculpture, of which coin-engraving is the offspring, receives the greatest illustration from numismatics. Not only is the memory of lost statues preserved to us in the designs of ancient coins, but those of Greece afford admirable examples of that skill by which her sculptors attained their great renown. The excellence of the designs of very many Greek coins struck during the period of the best art is indeed so great that, were it not for their smallness, they would form the finest series of art-studies in the world. The Roman coins, though at no time to be compared to the purest Greek, yet represent worthily the Graeco-Roman art of the empire. From the accession of Augustus to the death of Commodus they are often fully equal to the best Graeco-Roman statues. This may be said, for instance, of the dupondii struck in honour of Livia by Tiberius and by the younger Drusus, of the sestertii of Agrippina, and of the gold coins of Antoninus Pius and the two Faustinas, all which present portraits of remarkable beauty and excellence. The mediaeval Italian medals aie scarcely less useful as records of the progress and characteristics of art, and, placed by the side of the Greek and Roman coins, complete the most remarkable comparative series of monuments illustrating the history of the great schools of art that can be brought together. Ancient coins throw as great light upon the architecture as upon the sculpture of the nations by which they were struck. Under the empire, the Roman coins issued at the city very frequently bear representations of important edifices. The Greek imperial coins struck in the provinces present similar types, representing the most famous temples and other structures of their cities, of the form of some of which we should otherwise have been wholly ignorant. The little-known art of painting among the ancients does not receive so much illustration from the coins. The best Greek pieces are of too severe a style to admit of an approach to pictorial treatment, although we perceive such a tendency in the works of important schools, and during the period of decline. The Roman coins sometimes present groups which have a very pictorial character, traceable to the tendency of the sculpture of the period; this is principally about the time of the Antonines. They are, however, never so pictorial in treatment as the mediaeval Italian medals. The art of gem-engraving among the ancients is perhaps most nearly connected with their coinage. The subjects of coins and gems are so similar and so similarly treated that the authenticity of gems, that most difficult of archaeological questions, receives the greatest aid from the study of coins.

After what has been said it is not necessary to do more than mention how greatly the study of coins tends to illustrate the contemporary literature of the nations which issued them. Not only the historians, but the philosophers and the poets, are constantly illustrated by the money of their times. This was perceived at the revival of letters; and during the last two centuries coins were very frequently engraved in the larger editions of the classics. A want of technical numismatic knowledge in the editors, and the carelessness of the artists, combined to deprive these illustrations of much of their value. Probably in part on this account, but chiefly in consequence of the change from historical to textual criticism, ancient coins have been little used in this manner by the new school. This neglect is being remedied, although the full value of coins and medals in illustration of the literature of modern as well as of ancient times is not as yet sufficiently perceived.

The science of numismatics is of comparatively recent origin. The ancients do not seem to have formed collections, although they appear to have occasionally preserved individual specimens for their beauty. Petrarch has the credit of having been the first collector; but it is probable that in his time ancient coins were already attracting no little notice. The importance of the study of all coins has since been by degrees more and more recognized, and at present no branch of the pursuit is left wholly unexplored.

Besides its bearing upon the history, the religion, the manners, and the arts of the nations which have used money, the science of numismatics has a special modern use in relation to art. Displaying the various styles of art prevalent in different ages, coins supply us with abundant means for promoting the advancement of art among ourselves. If the study of many schools be at all times of advantage, it is especially so when there is little originality in the world. Its least value is to point out the want of artistic merit and historical commemoration in modern coins, and to suggest that modern medals should be executed after some study of the rules which controlled the great works of former times.

Definitions.— The following are the most necessary numismatic definitions.

1. A coin is a piece of metal of a fixed weight, stamped by authority of government, and employed as a circulating medium.

2. A medal is a piece, having no place in the currency, struck to commemorate some event or person. Medals are frequently comprised with coins in descriptions that apply to both equally; thus, in the subsequent definitions, by the term coins, coins and medals must generally be understood.

3. The coinage of a country is usually divided into the classes of gold, silver, and bronze (copper), for which the abbreviations A, √fi, and Ae are employed in catalogues. In each class are comprised, not only the coins of the metal from which it takes its name, with no more than a necessary or inseparable proportion of alloy, but coins of other metallic substances, usually base, and always compound, which were generally struck in the place of the purer pieces. The principal metallic substances thus used were electrum for gold, billon for silver, brass for copper, and potin for silver and copper.

4. Electrum (fiλeκτρov, ήλεκτρο^, a compound metallic substance, consisting of gold with a considerable alloy of silver. Pliny makes the proportion to have been four parts of gold to one of silver. The material of early coins of Asia Minor struck in the cities of the western coast is the ancient electrum. It appears here to have at first consisted of three parts of gold to one of silver; but afterwards the proportion of silver was increased, though perhaps not everywhere. Gold largely alloyed with silver, not struck by the ancient Greeks or their neighbours, should be termed pale gold, as in the case of some of the late Byzantine coins.

5. Billon, a term applied to the base metal of some Roman coins, and also to that of some mediaeval and modern coins. It is silver with a great proportion of alloy. When the base silver coins are replaced by copper washed with silver the term billon becomes inappropriate.

6. Brass, a compound metallic substance employed for coins. It may be used as an equivalent to the orichalcum of the Romans, a fine kind of brass of which the sestertii and dupondii were struck, but it is commonly applied indiscriminately to the whole of their copper currency.

7. Potin, a term applied to the base metal of which some ancient coins are composed. It is softer than billon.

8. Various other metallic substances have been used in coinage. The so-called “glass coins” of the Arabs are merely coin-weights.

9. The forms of coins have greatly varied in different countries and at different periods. The usual form in both ancient and modern times has been circular, and generally of no great thickness.

10. Coins are usually measured by J/ionnet’s scale, from which the greatest dimension is taken, or, when they are square, the greatest dimension in two directions. This is, however, a very unsatisfactory scale, as its divisions are of an arbitrary character, and the instruments for applying it are such as make exactness scarcely possible. A gauge graduated to inches and decimal parts of an inch or to millimètres is far more satisfactory.

11. The weight of a coin is of great importance, both in determining its genuineness and in distinguishing its identity. To ascertain exact weight even to the tenth of a grain is therefore necessary, and this can only be done by the careful use of excellent scales.

12. The specific gravity of a coin may be of use in determining the metals in its composition.

13. Whatever representations or characters are borne by a coin constitute its type. The subject of each side is also called a type, and, when there is not only a device but an inscription, the latter may be excluded from the term. This last is the general use. No distinct rule has been laid down as to what makes a difference of type, but it may be considered to be an essential difference, however slight.

14. A difference too small to constitute a new type makes a variety.

15. A coin is a duplicate of another when it agrees with it in all particulars but those of exact size and weight. Strictly speaking, ancient coins are rarely, if ever, duplicates, except when struck from the same die.

16. Of the two sides of a coin, that is called the obverse which bears the more important device or inscription. In early Greek coins it is the convex side; in Greek and Roman imperial it is the side bearing the head; in mediaeval and modern that bearing the royal effigy, or the king’s name, or the name of the city; and in Oriental that on which the inscription begins. The other side is called the reverse.

17. The field of a coin is the space unoccupied by the principal devices or inscriptions. Any detached independent device or character is said to be in the field, except when it occupies the exergue.

18. The exergue is that part of the reverse of a coin which is below the main device, and distinctly separated from it; it often bears a secondary inscription. Thus, the well-known inscription CONOB occupies the exergue of the late Roman and early Byzantine gold coins.

19. The edge of a coin is the surface of its thickness.

20. By the inscription or inscriptions of a coin all the letters it bears are intended; an inscription is either principal or secondary.

21. In describing coins the terms right and left mean the right and left of the spectator, not the heraldic and military right and left, or those of the coin.

22. A bust is the representation of the head and neck; it is commonly used of such as show at least the collar-bone, other busts being called heads.

23. A head properly means the representation of a head alone, without any part of the neck, but it is also commonly used when any part of the neck above the collar-bone is shown. The present article follows custom in the use of the terms bust and head.

24. A bust or head is either facing, usually three-quarter face, or in profile, in which latter case it is described as to right or to left. Two busts may be placed in various relative positions λvhich cannot be described in English without circumlocution.

25. A bust wearing a laurel-wreath is said to be laureate.

26. A bust bound with a regal fillet (diadem) is called diademed.

27. A bust of which the neck is clothed is said to be draped.

28. An object in the field of a coin which is neither a letter nor a monogram is usually called a symbol. This term is, however, only applicable when such an object is evidently the badge of a town or individual. The term adjunct, which is sometimes employed instead of symbol, is manifestly incorrect.

29. A mint-mark is a difference placed by the authorities of the mint upon all money struck by them, or upon each new die or separate issue.

30. A coin is said to be surfrappe when it has been struck on an older coin, of which the types are not altogether obliterated.

31. A double-struck coin is one in which the die or dies have shifted so as to cause a double impression.

32. A coin which presents two obverse types, or two reverse types, or of which the types of the obverse and reverse do not correspond, is called a mule ; it is the result of mistake or caprice.

Arrangement of Coins.— No uniform system has as yet been applied to the arrangement of all coins. It is usual to separate them into the three great classes of ancient coins (comprising Greek and Roman), mediaeval and modern, and Oriental coins. The details of these classes have been differently treated, both generally and specially. The arrangement of the Greek series has been first geographical, under countries and towns, and then chronological, for a further division; that of the Roman series, chronological, without reference to geography; that of the mediaeval and modern, the same as the Greek; and that of the Oriental, like the Greek, but unsystematically,—a treatment inadmissible except in the case of a single empire. Then, again, some numismatists have separated each denomination or each metal, or have separated the denominations of one metal and not of another. There has been no general and comprehensive system, constructed upon reasonable principles, and applicable to every branch of this complicated science. Without laying down a system of rules, or criticizing former modes of arrangement, we offer the following as a classification which is uniform without being servile.

1. Greek Coins.— All coins of Greeks, or barbarians who adopted Greek money, struck before the Roman rule or under it, but without imperial effigies. The countries and their provinces are placed in a geographical order from west to east, according to the system of Eckhel, with the cities in alphabetical order under the provinces, and the kings in chronological order. The civic coins usually precede the regal, as being the more important. The coins are further arranged chronologically, the civic commencing with the oldest and ending with those bearing the effigies of Roman emperors. The...